Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Bobby Kalotee

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete . Because of the mainspace history and the borderline tendentious editing of the SPA creator. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Bobby Kalotee

The question isn't whether the subject is notable. He probably is, or might not be. The question is whether this particular editor will ever develop this into a draft that will pass acceptance. In my opinion, this draft by this editor will never be accepted, partly because the editor is in too much of a hurry to get it approved to be able to rework it decently. (After all, his real purpose isn't to describe him neutrally but to praise him.) Robert McClenon (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is really about Sagar vaibhav (talk · contribs). He is a tenacious WP:SPA new editor. Tenacious is a step from tendenditious. Tendenditious will lead to WP:Blocks. Strongly advise Sagar to broaden his editing interests. Try, for example, improving content around Kalotee’s interests. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was leaning to say "Delete per WP:NOTADVOCACY, read WP:Alternative outlets", but this source is too good to justify deletion as a draft. Has potential. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is a class of new editors who want to improve Wikipedia by creating one new article. Some of us have been saying for some time that they would actually help Wikipedia more by helping with the 5.5 million articles that we already have than with one article that we do not have. When I deal with a single-purpose account who is as stubborn as User:Sagar vaibhav, I have a difficult time with assume good faith because most such SPAs are undisclosed paid editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OR WP:COI editors. Legacypac (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think that User:SmokeyJoe and I have a philosophical disagreement about drafts by single-purpose accounts. I am not just looking at whether the subject may be notable, but also at whether the draft is capable of being made into an article with the particular SPA as the prime mover. It is clear to me that this particular draft will not be accepted with this particular SPA behind it. Maybe someone else can develop an article on Kalotee, but this particular draft is only a timesink. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I sympathise but I do not believe that deletion of viable drafts is a positive way forward. Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed article creation trial/Request for comment on permanent implementation is the next big step, implicit is the community coming round to understanding that newcomers are not well placed to write new articles, they first need some editing experience.

Bobby Kalotee looks maybe notable, but this draft, I guess is WP:TNT-able. Sagar vaibhav (talk · contribs) lacks the experience or knowledge of an encyclopedia, and is doing the subject a disservice. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reason Bobby Kalotee was create protected recently. Legacypac (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only WP:ECP-ed, not WP:SALTED. A behavioural remedy. Still, that’s new information here, User:Deb, the protecting admin, might comment. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is that I considered Bobby Kalotee might, at some future date, be considered notable, but Sagar vaibhav (talk · contribs), by continuing to edit disruptively, is just hindering his inclusion. I find it impossible to believe that there is no COI. Deb (talk) 11:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.