Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Mariah Huq

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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. Will salt the main space title to minimize further shenanigans. There doesn't seem to be much point to salting the draft name since two previous drafts were created in user space. RL0919 (talk) 04:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Mariah Huq

 * – (View MfD)

Mariah Huq was deleted after an AfD discussion on 24 October 2019. Despite this, the creator of this draft submitted it for review only an hour later. As the article was deleted, there is little point retaining the draft since it will not be approved. Further, the attempt to create the article is clearly undisclosed paid editing, which the draft creator has now "sort of" admitted to at Talk:Mariah Huq. I explained that the article could not be created to the draft's creator a week ago, but he's not getting the picture. Regardless, there is little to be gained by keeping this draft, especially as it is only encouraging him to keep submitting it for review.  Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 11:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete and Salt with ECP in both draft space and article space, as a case of gaming the system, so that a neutral editor may be able to create an article if the subject becomes notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:36, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. The driving reason for deletion at Articles for deletion/Mariah Huq was no sources, or was it one source?  This draft now has sources.  I didn't see the deleted article, but my guess is that the re-creation probably beats CSD#G4.
 * Undisclosed paid editing (WP:UPE) continues to NOT be a reason for deletion. If you think it should, contribution to the current discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy.  I think you cannot substantiate slightly clever UPEs as UPEs.  I would prefer to simply disallow SPAs from creating pages.
 * Advice to the Mariah Huq author: Post AfD deletion, it is de factor required that you satisfy WP:THREE to demonstrate Wikipedia-notability.  What are the three best sources for demonstrating notability?  Give three.  If you give ten, I will not read any.  Do not WP:Reference bomb.  If the best three are not good enough, no number of additional worse sources can help.  Also, if you are genuinely interested in becoming a contributing editor, get some experience improving existing content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Lack of sources was but one reason for deletion. Another was that the subject fails to meet WP:NACTOR, which is still the case. The present version of the article includes several references but was declined because the draft still fails to demonstrate notability of the subject. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 06:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Notability is not a reason for deletion in draftspace, and MfD is not a forum for examining notability. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm puzzled by this attitude since notability is regularly used as a reason for deletion at AfD. A subject that is not notable should not have an article. WP:N clearly states that "notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article." A draft about a subject that is not notable can't be moved to mainspace if it fails WP:N. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 21:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * See WP:NMFD and this RfC. MfD is not equipped to do an AfD-style analysis on every hopeless draft.  If repeated submitted we delete per WP:DMFD.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:56, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete this draft the infobox and the photograph are in the wrong place.Catfurball (talk) 16:16, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What do you mean “in the wrong place”? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Basic article structure is infobox, lede then the body of the article with prose and other images. The draft has an image first, followed by the lede and then the infobox in a section titled "Early Life". Basically, it's all pretty much backwards. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 21:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


 * OK, to analyse it seriously. Ten sources are listed.
 * 1. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/23/arts/television/married-to-medicine-on-bravo.html Doesn't mention the subject.
 * 2. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/bravo-married-medicine-cast-premiere-420716 Just facts, no secondary source material, not independent.
 * 3. https://deadline.com/2019/01/married-to-medicine-franchise-expands-los-angeles-bravo-1202546386/ Doesn't mention the subject
 * 4. https://www.oprahmag.com/entertainment/tv-movies/a28634886/married-to-medicine-season-7-premiere-date-trailer-cast-news/ Just plot.  No commentary, does not attest notability.
 * 5. https://www.nbcumv.com/talent/mariah-huq/bios_read_more Maybe a source for a stub, but I call it non-independent (independent sources do not state what the subject "knew".
 * 6. http://stylemagazine.com/news/2014/apr/09/sparkles-life-presents-high-heels-and-hats-mothers/ Promotional non-independent, does not attest notability.
 * 7. https://www.bravotv.com/married-to-medicine/season-3/blogs/mariah-huq/mariah-i-just-didnt-understand-why Promotional non-independent, does not attest notability.
 * 8. http://www.sfoundation.org/projects.htm Does not mention the subject
 * 9. https://newschannel9.com/news/local/rev-al-sharpton-discusses-racial-disparities-at-hamilton-county-naacp-awards-ceremony Co-won the non-notable award "Ruby Hurley humanitarian of the year". Non-notable awards don't confer notability.  The source makes no comment on the subject.
 * 10. https://www.chattanoogan.com/2019/10/29/398695/Ruby-Hurley-Image-Awards-Are-Tuesday.aspx Same as 9, Co-won the same non-notable award. The source makes no comment on the subject.
 * None of the listed sources meet the WP:GNG. The draft is hopeless, it will not be accepted, and would be deleted at WP:AfD.
 * Redirect to Married to Medicine is the best an option. This draft, as was the deleted article, is a premature WP:SPINOUT.  Do not spinout subtopics without talkpage consensus.  Even if a couple of notability-attesting sources were to surface, it would still be a WP:BIO1E redirect to Married to Medicine.  A little philanthropy does not make a reality star notable, worthy of a standalone article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, now or by G13 in 6 months, is another option. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * AussieLegend, I agree that this draft is hopeless. However, we don't delete drafts for being hopeless.  There are too many to process like that.  We wait for them to be submitted, and then DECLINE or REJECT them, and leave them to be later deleted under WP:CSD process.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Given this article seemed to have been improved since its last AfD at Articles for deletion/Mariah Huq, where it had almost no refs, it should really have been re-sent to AfD.  However, now that we are here, and the new refs have been scruitizined, I think it is still a clear AfD delete; might as well get it done given the time we have spent on it. Britishfinance (talk) 13:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Just noting that "improvement" has been almost non-existent. Most of what's in the draft was in the version that was deleted and was what was left after I deleted blatant copyvios. That left the vast majority of the article unsourced. The creator has since added refs to support the content but, as SmokeyJoe's analysis indicates, they may as well not be there as they don't support the content. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 14:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was a good improvement; however, when a deleted article with almost no refs reappears with more refs, it is often better to send to AfD. Ultimately, if it fails again at AfD, it also supports its ultimate case for SALTing. Britishfinance (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The history is a bit confusing now, even to me, because of Tw59's various page moves. He's been very active trying to create an article for his client. The article that was deleted didn't reappear in article space. It was recreated at User:Tw59/Mariah huq and submitted for review straight away, only an hour after Mariah Huq was deleted after the AfD. Another version was then created at User:Tw59/sandbox and that was later moved to Draft:Mariah Huq after some peculiar page moves by Tw59. Since it's now a draft I had to take it to MfD, not AfD as you suggest. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, then perhaps there is a stronger case for SALTing now - at the last AfD Articles for deletion/Mariah Huq, editors were pretty clear she was not notable. Britishfinance (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2019 (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.