Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 04:35, 29 July 2024

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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: no consensus. It's clear the community is closely divided at this time about the appropriateness of this user page and further discussion is unlikely to lead to consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Valjean/Archive 32

User:Valjean/Archive 32 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)​

This is a violation of numerous site policies.

1) Editors should not use Misplaced Pages for content that they insist other editors are not allowed to read or discuss. 2) The title is deliberately misleading; the page is not a talk-page archive, but an extremely long and rambling article about the "Donald Trump pee tape" and other rumors involving Russia. 3) Some of the accusations and insinuations against Mr. Trump are BLP violations; the clear intention of the article is to engage in personal attacks against Mr. Trump. Walsh90210 (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Editors are allowed to use their private userspace for article development. The URL is deliberately neutral to avoid it being noticed and publicized by bad actors. I am not interested in promoting this content. Your opinions of the insinuations and accusations made by RS, Congressional investigations, and the intelligence community should not be used as the reason for deleting content that is being developed for an article. It is not ready for publication yet, so don't judge it as if it had already been publicized. That's an attitude that works against article development and our RS and Verifiability PAG. I am working on, revising, rearranging, and continually paring down, this article-to-be. This may not be its final format.

Keep your political views out of this. This is harassment. You should read it and the sources before acting, and then wait until publication. You will learn a lot.

Whether the rumor is true or not, RS and official investigations have written a lot about the rumor, and the topic is obviously quite notable, so an MfD or AfD would be improper. Harassment of editors while they are developing articles based on RS is a serious breach of conduct norms here and can have wide and damaging ramifications that prevent the development of potentially controversial articles. That is the effect here, and it's a really nasty move. The chilling effect is enormous. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

The hypocrisy of a person who puts "This is my sandbox. No cats allowed. Just stay away. If you want to discuss this, DON'T use any talk pages. Email me." at the top of a page accusing others of a "chilling effect" and "harassment" for looking at it is immense. I will not reply to any of the other accusations against me. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I did that because I don't want my work to be misused to push a POV or draw attention to it. That would be a forbidden misuse of userspace. You are the one drawing attention to it. Articles, not drafts, are what should get attention.

Stop and think about the chilling effect this has. No editor will ever be safe when creating legitimate content, no matter how notable and well-sourced. This kind of harassment should not be allowed, and we need a guideline to prevent it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Weak Delete for the following reasons:
  • • This is an entirely negative page about a living person who is the subject of a biography of a living person. It is not an attack page that is subject to speedy deletion because it is sourced, but it violates neutral point of view.
    • If the user wants to develop article material without interference by other editors, they can do so on their own computer.
    • If the user wants to display content to the general public but does not want them to edit it and does not want them to discuss it on a talk page, then the user is seeking to use Misplaced Pages as a web host.
    • Since we already have an article on Donald J. Trump, the user appears to be developing a subordinate article. Discussion of whether to spin out or split an article should be on the talk page of the parent article, Talk:Donald J. Trump, not by creating a draft child article subject to article ownership.
    • The originator says that we need a guideline to prevent: This kind of harassment. I would be interested in seeing and reviewing the draft guideline.
    • This isn't exactly a sandbox and isn't exactly a draft, but it is problematic as either. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Changing this to a Weak Delete for now seeing that other experienced editors disagree. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
• DeleteNeutral. Apart from the problems of the content itself (BLP violations etc.), the user needs to be reminded of WP:OWN. Placing limits on how a user page (or any page) can be discussed is not any one user's prerogative. I also ask my fellow MfD participants to review User:Valjean/Archive 31 and User:Valjean/Archive 30 which have very similar histories to the nominated page except they are blanked. They may also be eligible for deletion. Nickps (talk) 22:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  • I take back the part about BLP violations per the latitude users should be afforded in their own userspace. However, I still stand by my comment that placing limits on a talk page like it was done here should not be tolerated. Nickps (talk) 14:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    • @Nickps: thanks for your change of heart. I can understand your reaction to my rather terse and short note on the page. It was written at a time when I was under ferocious attack and harassment for working on some draft articles in my userspace, and I was very touchy. It forced me to delete years of work and research.

  I have now revised that note and explain my reasons more fully. Please read it. It's also the first time I have publicly mentioned my autism, AFAIK. I'm not always good at communication, am not always diplomatic, and often make mistakes. I'm sorry about that. I appreciate helpful advice. I am not an anti-social person, just a bit awkward at times. Life is one continuous series of hourly misunderstandings, and that makes it a pain in the ass, yet I keep trying. I just wish there were some protections afforded to editors when working in their private userspace. In a publishing house, what has happened here would not be allowed. See my note for more on that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: please clarify a few things for me:

1. You say it "isn't exactly a sandbox". Please point me to the PAG that requires a page that is clearly labeled as "removed from search engines' indexes" and a "This is my sandbox." (plus "This is not a Misplaced Pages article: It is an individual user's work-in-progress page, and may be incomplete and/or unreliable.") to have a URL or title that also says "sandbox". What have I done wrong?
2. You say it "isn't exactly a draft". It is clearly labeled a "draft": "For guidance on developing this draft, see Misplaced Pages: So you made a userspace draft." Please point me to the PAG that requires it to be labeled a "draft" in some other manner. The URL and title can be WXYZ or !@#$%^, AFAIK. I don't know of any rule about this.
3. Please point me to the PAG that forbids the creation of an article when it, right from the beginning, is obviously too large to be included in a main article. There are such things as articles that mention Trump where he is not the main topic of the article, even though it touches on him. The title describes the topic accurately and has high common name recognition value. What PAG have I violated?
4. You write "If the user wants to display content to the general public" I do not want to do that, hence the odd URL. I deliberately try NOT to draw attention to it. It is not an essay, and I do not mention it anywhere else, link to it, or share it anywhere else. I am not interested in misusing my userspace. I am doing what editors are allowed to do here, which is to use their userspace to host drafts they are developing as articles or other products useful to the project. What have I done wrong? What PAG have I violated?
5. BLP applies to "unsourced" negative content, not to properly sourced negative content that is part of documenting a topic like this one. You don't seem to have read the page or know what it's about. You probably think that what is written about it at Steele dossier covers the topic, but that barely scratches the surface, as this rumor started in 2013, and Trump has known about it since then, long before the dossier was imagined.

Please answer my questions. The content is based on myriad RS, many of the highest quality and reliability, as this has national security implications and is the subject of FBI and Congressional investigations, testimony, and several lawsuits by Trump, which he has lost.

You should read these DYK? items. Myriad RS are behind each one:

Did you know?

• ... that Trump has known about the rumor since he left Moscow in 2013?
• ... that the rumor did not start with the Steele dossier? The dossier only repeats the original rumor.
• ... that Trump has repeatedly lied about this? He even dared do it to the Director of the FBI.
• ... that Trump's lies were so blatant and egregious that they got the Director of the FBI to change from a pee tape skeptic to a maybe peeliever?
• ... that many other notable people have strong suspicions that the rumor is true?
• ... that Trump's own actions cause them to think this way?
• ... that before anyone pinpointed the possible time of the alleged incident, Trump lied very specifically about exactly that time?
• ... that his actions are considered evidence of his consciousness of guilt?
• ... that Trump and others have acted as if the tapes were real and actually exist?
• ... that Michael Cohen has testified about this to Congress in 2019 and revealed many of these facts?
• ... that Cohen and a group of allies have worked for many years to track down the tapes and stop this rumor? He was willing to pay a lot of money for the tapes. He testified about this.
• ... that myriad RS, Congressional investigations, and other very reliable sources have written about this and analyzed it?
• ... that the fact that the actual tape has not been published means the rumor, true or not, remains unproven?
• ... that the real issues here are kompromat and national security issues, not Trump's alleged sexual proclivities?

And one more:

• ... that editors should be allowed, without harassment, to do what is allowed here, which is to use their userspace to create articles, including potentially controversial ones?

I do not use words lightly in my draft article, and, whenever necessary, I have used words like "alleged", which is what we do with unproven claims and allegations. The rumor has not been misrepresented as proven fact. It's an extremely notable and serious rumor that did not start with the Steele dossier, and Trump has repeatedly lied about it. That increases the notability, as RS have documented these lies. The topic easily passes the GNG notability guideline. If someone has a problem with some of the content, I have written, right at the top of the page, for them to "email me". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. This is no different than a draft version of an article, that is being worked on in user space. We delete pages in draft space if they are abandoned for more than a particular amount of time, but this is in user space, not draft space. As such, it doesn't matter much what the user decided to call the page (as in "archive") – but if this hasn't been done already, I would strongly urge putting the "NOINDEX" notation on the page. Maybe there are issues with WP:NPOV (there probably are), but those can be dealt with if it ever gets moved to mainspace. I get it, that some editors just don't like the negative tone, but the person that it's about is a public figure and there are sources that, even if not reliable, are at least verifiable, so the argument that it's a BLP violation is weak. If anyone wants to make Misplaced Pages great again, this is the wrong place to pursue it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  • NOINDEX has been there from the beginning, and it's VISIBLE! I do not want to promote or advertise this page. I just want to create an article, quietly, in my userspace. I have always created articles this way. Newbies are not allowed to do this, but experienced editors are.

  Anyone can email me if they have issues they want to discuss. It's that simple. The reason I don't want to use the talk page is that it draws more attention to the page. I don't want it to become the focus of controversy. That will no doubt happen after it goes public, as that happens to most articles about controversial topics. That's okay.

  It's interesting that the standard template for a draft assumes it is "incomplete and/or unreliable": "This is not a Misplaced Pages article: It is an individual user's work-in-progress page, and may be incomplete and/or unreliable. For guidance on developing this draft, see Misplaced Pages:So you made a userspace draft." Read that template at the top of the draft page. I am not doing anything unusual here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks. That's good about NOINDEX. I hadn't checked. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Based on discussions at my talk page, I am confident that Valjean intends to fix the NPOV problems with the draft page before attempting to move it into mainspace. That being the case, there is no policy-based reason that I can see, to delete it from userspace. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
• Leaning keep. “BLP violations” are not substantiated. Although there’s a lot there, it’s within reasonable leeway for 33,000 mainspace contributions over 21 years. The content is reliably sourced. It does read a polemical, not suitable for Misplaced Pages mainspace. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Bingo! @SmokeyJoe: you're right: "It does read a polemical, not suitable for Misplaced Pages mainspace."...yet! It needs work, and that's what I'm doing. I am getting close to starting to seek input from others. Your advice will be appreciated. Feel free to email me. This is my standard method of writing articles, just like many other experienced editors do. There is nothing unusual happening here, except for this MfD. I don't recall this happening before in this type of situation, where all the rules for article creation are being followed. A draft article should not be judged harshly. It is not perfect, and, as the draft template actually says, a draft is assumed to be "incomplete and/or unreliable". If this were released now, criticism would be warranted, but it's still in my user draft space where it belongs. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment to User:Valjean - It wasn't necessary both to ping me here at this MFD and to post to my talk page. I had already seen your ping here before you posted to my talk page. It is true that I didn't answer, because sometimes I think and/or write before answering. I probably will answer, but will not necessarily answer within 24 hours. I am not required to answer, although I probably will. Bludgeoning an AFD, MFD, or DRV is usually not the most effective approach. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - Nominating a draft for MFD or an article for AFD is not Harassment. Was there some other harassment also? If so, please report it at WP:ANI after reading the boomerang essay. Do we need a paragraph in the Harassment policy about What Is Not Harassment? There are too many claims of Harassment, some valid, some not valid. There are too many claims of Vandalism, and we have a section on What Is Not Vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  Nomination another’s usersubpages can be harassment. As a rule, I always consider whether there is a harassment motivation. Does the nominator have a POV disagreement with the user that related to the user’s usersubpage? It happens. It could be the case here. The nominator, User:Walsh90210, makes broad allegations without easy presentation of the evidence, and I am still wondering how they came to visit this page, and what is their history in relation to both the topic and the user Valjean. I have suspicions about Walsh90210, they are a new account, they don’t act new, they seem combative, they don’t have a userpage but they bluelinked it with a week of their first edit, they claim to know the clear intention of another user. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  See my talk page:User talk:Doug Weller#MfD etc. where User:Star Mississippi raised the question. Walsh90210 replied saying "This is not my first account (note Special:Diff/1225534254). I abandoned my previous account (which was never sanctioned) because I did not want to associate with older comments I had made about Israel-Palestine after the events of late 2023. I don't intend to say any more other than in private communications with ARBCOM. Walsh90210 (talk) 7:32 pm, Yesterday (UTC+1)" I agree with the rest of the points made by SmokeyJoe, I think there's likely to be a history behind this nomination. Doug Weller talk 09:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  THanks @Doug Weller. I'm not going to weigh in on the content of this draft, but I do have concerns about the nomination and a procedural close could be in order. As I said on Doug's Talk, it should probably go to ArbComm if there's a privacy matter. Not policy and speaking as editor not admin, but I really think CT/fairly new Clean Start editors don't go well together. Star Mississippi 13:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  I had a quick look and I think ArbCom should have a longer look. User:HJ Mitchell, User:ToBeFree, can you grab your special glasses? Drmies (talk) 21:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks – I currently can't investigate this, but I have forwarded the request to arbcom-en. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Relevant guidelines for this MfD

Different "namespaces" here at Misplaced Pages are governed by different rules, and that includes the rules for MfDs. Valjean's work here is governed by personal "userspace drafts", not Misplaced Pages:Drafts (which governs drafts in "draftspace"). Unlike a "personal userspace draft",

"Articles in the Misplaced Pages:Draft namespace can be edited and moved into the main encyclopedia by anyone. So you can create the draft in your personal userspace, move it to the draft namespace to be edited by anyone, and later move it to the main encyclopedia."(Source: Help:Userspace draft)

This implies that a user has nearly full control of a draft in their "private userspace", both creation and publication, but not their work in draftspace. (That "nearly" implies that control is not absolute, as with all things at Misplaced Pages. There are exceptions to every rule.) If I'm wrong, please enlighten us. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Your userspace is like your desk in your workplace. You should keep it in good order, and in keeping with the workplace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there are workplace rules, and I will of course try to abide by them. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I believe the reasoning for Valjean's entreaty that people email him rather than ask him about the article onwiki is that some months ago a very large number of his drafts were nominated for deletion at the same time and he was given a good deal of hell over it. Not that a user is allowed to demand nobody go to their talk page and ask them about stuff. For that matter, I don't think this is actually binding on anybody -- you're not REQUIRED to email him (indeed you're permitted to discuss or MfD them, as we are doing here). I would lean towards wanting to delete this, because it seems like a long and avowedly negative go-off about a BLP subject, although on the other hand it does at least seem like an earnest attempt to write an article. On the third hand, it is currently an article I would be strongly inclined to vote to delete on BLP grounds if it were at AfD. I think there are probably other options as well (a local own-computer copy, a copy in revision history/HTML note/etc). jp×g🗯️ 23:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  • You are correct about my reasoning for preferring email, but I have now changed the communication instructions to:

  "If you want to discuss this, I'd prefer that you email me, but if that won't work for you, then please use my user talk page and not the talk page here. (I don't get pinged here, and the talk page here is for archiving my user talk page.)"

  I hope that's better. When I move this to a different userspace page, I'll update that message. I'd really like to understand your BLP concerns ("inclined to vote to delete on BLP grounds if it were at AfD"), but let's not do that here. Your advice would be appreciated. Per WP:PRESERVE, the goal should be to make this something that would pass an AfD, as it's a very notable topic. How to do that? My email and talk page are open for you. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep This is a work in progress and it will need a lot of additional work in order to be ready for main space, if it ever is. I see no convincing policy based reason to delete it. Cullen328 (talk) 05:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - This appears to just be a web host that has no chance of being an article. It also looks like a continuation of when a bunch of your bad drafts were nominated for deletion and you tried to hide them in archive histories of other pages. PackMecEng (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  • I'll drop you a message on your talk page. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete as this is one massive BLPVIO—and BLP is one of, if not the, most important policy we have—and preferably a block from this page for Valjean for the WP:BLUDGEONing. ——Serial Number 54129 09:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

  I've explained above why it's not a BLP violation (albeit a violation of NPOV), and no one has refuted what I said. Editors continuing to cite BLP are simply doing so ipse dixit. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

  Uh, you mention that sources even if not reliable, is ok with you, which BLP says is...not compliant. Arkon (talk) 22:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

  Consider WP:WEAKSILENCE. Just because no one is responding that doesn't mean you're right. In fact, WP:BLP says Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to Misplaced Pages's three core content policies:

  yet you admit it has NPOV issues. NPOV issues = BLP violation, it's that simple. As I've said above I'm willing to let it slide in userspace because of no visibility but pretending there's no BLP violation makes no sense. Nickps (talk) 22:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

  First, Nickps, I do appreciate that you changed your earlier comment to neutral. And yes, there is a reasonable argument to be made that NPOV problems, in themselves, are a potential BLP violation. That's a better response than just saying how important the BLP policy is, which is ipse dixit. Now, to both of you, let's please note what I actually said: "the person that it's about is a public figure and there are sources that, even if not reliable, are at least verifiable, so the argument that it's a BLP violation is weak." I said that the BLP arguments are weak, not that there is zero BLP issue, and I was wrong to lose that nuance in my later comment, so that's on me. But I didn't say that I think it's OK to cite sources that would fail WP:RS, so please do not insult me by making it sound like I did. What I said, and I still say, is that if there is verifiable source material about a very public figure, basing content on that is not inherently a BLP violation. We go where the source material tells us to go, rather than ignoring sources out of a mistaken sense of false balance. We have lots of mainspace pages about living persons who have done bad things, but if it's well-sourced that what we say is true, that's not a BLP violation. This is a draft, in progress in userspace, and Valjean is making a sincere effort to fix the things that are wrong with it. Nobody is arguing that it's ready for mainspace. I'm acknowledging that there may be content that will have to be removed because of unreliable sources, and I've made it very clear that I think that there have to be a lot of revisions to balance the NPOV. But I continue to believe that arguments that this must be deleted now, out of BLP concerns, are weak arguments. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

  I quoted you, in bold. There is no insult. Arkon (talk) 22:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

  And then you said that it "is ok with" me. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

  You voted keep. Arkon (talk) 23:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

  I see it's not worth arguing with you, since I already explained that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah I have to say your argument makes no sense. BLP is a subset of NPOV, if there are NPOV issues on a BLP article then there is a BLP issue. BLP extends to every page on Misplaced Pages, talk pages, and user pages. PackMecEng (talk) 23:23, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

  Ipse dixit. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

  No, that's self evident per WP:BLPTALK. BLP applies to user pages too not because an editor here says so, but because the policy itself says so and if someone thinks the BLP violations are bad enough, they have every right to !vote delete because of that. Nickps (talk) 23:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

  In general ipse dixit is not the own you seem to think it is. If the plain text of a policy says something, like The BLP policy also applies to user and user talk pages. (from WP:BLPTALK) then asserting it is a valid argument. Nickps (talk) 23:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

  The issue here isn't whether BLP applies in a given namespace. If one editor baldly asserts a BLP problem, and another asserts that there isn't one, it's not as though asserting a BLP problem is an "own". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete nothing is stopping Valjean from keeping any of this stuff online in another setting, or offline in a document. But on Misplaced Pages it absolutely shouldn't be here. It's free web hosting of a "draft" that fundamentally is incompatible with mainspace standards, and Valjean is never going to be able to make it so (their wiki-wide conduct needs far more of a look-at, this MfD and his conduct being a chief example why.) Trying to use talk page archives as an end-run around our draft rules (and further scrutiny) is definitely in violation of the spirit of our content policies. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 20:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

• Please participate on the talk page: Please provide evidence of BLP violations -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

• KEEP per Cullen and Tryptofish. I disagree with the arguement that NPOV means a BLP violation. Where is that states in our policies? This isn't an article, clearly, and even if editors don't like the content that's no reason for deletion. If there are any actual violations, spell them out and ask for them to be removed. @David Fuchs: I don't see where Misplaced Pages:User pages#What may I not have in my user pages? or even Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons#Non-article space is being violated. Doug Weller talk 08:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  I already provided the relevant quote from the policy but since it was missed, here it is again, unedited this time. The lead of WP:BLP says that:

  Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Misplaced Pages page, including but not limited to articles, talk pages, project pages, and drafts. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Misplaced Pages's three core content policies:

  • Neutral point of view (NPOV)
  • Verifiability (V)
  • No original research (NOR)

My problem with your interpretation is that it just doesn't match what the text says. BLP as written does not allow for partially adhering to NPOV. There is no such thing as not being NPOV enough for mainspace but being NPOV enough for userspace because BLP says that material about living people anywhere on Misplaced Pages should adhere strictly to the 3 core policies. "Strictly" means that you either get it right, or you don't. The argument that you can be less NPOV in userspace is shut down immediately by this. The way BLP is written, NPOV enough for mainspace and NPOV enough for userspace are identical. And, in my opinion at least, this is not a defect in the wording but how it is supposed to be. Nickps (talk) 12:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

It is possible to wikilawyer to produce nonsense.

On Trump, NPOV is very delicate to achieve. In fact, this is why I had Portal:Donald Trump deleted, as it was inherently, hopelessly, biased (by Wikipedian interest).

A draft is not inherently biased, or inherently failing NPOV, and every page can have its NPOV improved. NPOV is a balancing act, not a binary absolute.

Every draft with any subjectivity fails ideal NPOV. That’s why drafting is a good idea.

Conflating the absolutism of BLP, with the ambition of NPOV, leads to nonsense.

The page as a whole is not NPOV, but line by line, paragraph by paragraph, it is well sourced. That is good enough for BLP. And as Trump is a super high profile public person, BLP applies far less than for a private person.

There are problems with this page, but this week, deletion is not the best answer. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm wary about adding further to the wall of text, but I might as well point out that the BLP policy does not forbid content that says that living persons have flaws. It's not like our policy requires our BLPs to be written in ways that the page subjects would find unobjectionable. The policy requires only that we not say things about living persons that are unverifiable, or that we mislead readers into thinking things about living persons that are unverifiable. We also should not cherry-pick negative information in order to present a picture that is UNDUE-ly negative, but this is something that can be fixed while a draft is being written, especially with a "no index" tag that makes it invisible to general readers. I wouldn't object to rev-deling earlier versions of the draft page when and if it gets moved into mainspace. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Valjean's conduct leads me to believe they are incapable of creating an article that abides by the project's standards. This comment confirms that. I won't be responding to the accusations against me, and I won't bother dealing with this thread again. Nickps (talk) 17:38, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  Someone take him to ANI already! Enough is enough! Nickps (talk) 17:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  Never mind. I did it myself Nickps (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

For convenience: ANI complaint -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep - This is honestly no different than editing one's sandbox and can easily be considered a draft article that isn't approved. Once it is posted to the mainspace as an article (if it ever is), we can have an AfD discussion when the need arises. It's Valjean's userspace and it's not like a Google search for "Donald Trump pee pee tape" directs one to this page. If this page represents some degree of soapboxing, then I can see wherein the issue lies. But as of now, I am not convinced to vote delete. — That Coptic Guy (talk) (contribs) 18:49, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST, and find something more useful for everyone to argue over. This isn't a draft. It isn't an article, and there is absolutely no reason why it needs to be anywhere on Misplaced Pages servers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

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.