Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Markuann Smith

 __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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 14:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Markuann Smith

 * — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 04:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 04:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 04:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 04:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Drafts on non-notable person. Created by blocked sockpuppeteer and sockpuppets. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The two users who created the above drafts do not appear to be blocked. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 01:53, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Godsy - Yes. The SPI is hanging, with the finding of sockpuppetry, but the case is awaiting closure (and blockage of the users).  See Sockpuppet investigations/Bettemarkets.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:25, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Pending the outcome of Sockpuppet investigations/Bettemarkets. I will see if I can nudge it along.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 04:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete (commenting because I was pinged) - the SPI is kind of irrelevant, neither of the users were blocked/banned at the time that these pages were created and WP:EVADE doesn't apply. However it is apparent that the subject of the draft is irredeemably non-notable. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - Socks now blocked. In any case, the person isn't notable, and if any good-faith user wanted to establish notability, they could have.  Robert McClenon (talk) 09:26, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable and promotional.  The two sources are mere mentions, therefore are not suitable content for building an article, combined with promotion, makes the page WP:G11-eligible.  If other sources can show the subject is notable, WP:TNT still applies to this page as it is build on unsuitable sources.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:53, 8 September 2018 (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.