Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Morissa Schwartz

 __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. Main space page is already ECPed; the draft space could be also if it is recreated without substantial new sources to show notability, but I'm not taking that step at this time. RL0919 (talk) 04:28, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Morissa Schwartz


After having been deleted in the main article space three times, and after having been declined for a lack of verifiable notability in draftspace two times, after verifying that the sources have indeed not been independent, I am rejecting this draft: The topic is not notable for a Wikipedia article. The relevant notability guidelines are the General Notability Guideline (GNG) and the Notability guideline about people (NBIO), specifically the section about creative professionals (AUTHOR). I have conducted a search for independent, reliable sources per WP:BEFORE, and was unable to find in-depth coverage that would warrant the existence of a Wikipedia article about the subject. I suggest salting if the result is "delete", because of the repeated recreation. The draft's history contains more details about removed self-published sources, and the reasons for doing so. The alleged guinness world record does not even seem to exist / is held by someone else. http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/longest-chain-of-bracelets/ http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/longest-friendship-bracelet ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have create-protected the main space article so that an extended-confirmed editor may recreate it in the event it ever passes AFC. I have no opinion about deletion of this draft. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - This draft is a paid submission. See author's disclosure.  It doesn't appear to be worth the price.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as being tendentiously resubmitted. Please extended-confirmed protect in draft space (as well as in article space) to prevent future re-creation by paid submitters.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete enough volunteer time wasted on this paid submission. Agree with salting. Legacypac (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete now that it’s here, but the AFCH Reject option is supposed to be sufficient. Pages like this should be rejected and left for G13.  Come to MfD only after there is post-rejection tendentious resubmission.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Asking for consensus to salt is valid reason to nominate. Legacypac (talk) 08:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorta maybe only. You can ask for it here alongside a deletion rationale, otherwise the place to ask is Requests for page protection.
 * This request for salting is a bit enthusiastic given that the page has not got any deletions in the logs except G13. The expectation is that a proper consensus deletion, linked from the log, is sufficient notice against free re-creation. G13 doesn’t do that.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:43, 8 January 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.