Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Nichelle Rodriguez

 __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:  Speedy Delete. Deleted by as a G5 (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Nichelle Rodriguez

 * – (View MfD)

Promotional article by an undisclosed paid editor (now blocked), most of the coverage is about a controversial summercamp and not about her. Atlantic306 (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as undisclosed paid editing and promotional crap. Better to delete than to have move-warring.  Robert McClenon (talk) 06:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think this should have been put into mainspace and sent to AfD instead.  This ref |The Guardian is approaching WP:SIGCOV. AfD would rule on the inherent notability of the subject, which I think is the core issue here. Britishfinance (talk) 12:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that moving a draft to mainspace in order to have it deleted by mainspace rules is a form of gaming the system and very poor practice. If an editor thinks it is a valid article and expects it to be kept at an AfD, that is a different matter. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 04:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem here is that the creator has been indefinitely blocked and is thus not capable of moving the article, however, I still think that AfD is the more appropriate forum as there is a chance this BLP could be notable and I don't think that MfD is not the right forum for such consideration. Britishfinance (talk) 10:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems that is interested in working on the draft. If this person could be notable, but the draft text does not yet demonstrate this, it would be better, in my view, to leave this undeleted in draft space until it is developed enough to have a reasonable chance of passing an AfD -- which might be never, or it might be next week. MfD should not delete because a topic might be notable but a draft doesn't yet include sources to establish this, but neither should we move drafts not yet ready for mainspace merely because the originator has been blocked. Indeed I am not sure that "move to mainspace" is a valid MfD outcome, but if it is, it should only be used when a draft is honestly believed ready to be kept in mainspace, not deleted from it. That is my view, at least, and i think it reflects policy. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I have changed my !vote to Keep. I think that it is better that  work on this in Draftspace and then see if it can be moved to Main Space when ready (it can be AfD listed if appropriate).  Per my comment above, I do think there are refs to show there is a chance this could meet notability, and therefore am happy to give it the chance. Britishfinance (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think has been blocked (could be a sock of the creator), so I think we are back to square one here. Britishfinance (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I would like to know what in the content of this article makes it too promotional, and whether the article can be fixed to make it less promotional. Promotional articles are a disservice to readers, but if this Nichelle Rodriguez is notable enough to deserve an article, it would be better to fix this draft rather than delete it. Kurzon (talk) 19:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep I too would like to know what makes this article to promotional. I read the sources to find Nichelle Rodriguez is a major subject in each as she is notably the driven factor for each being written. AKinderWorld (talk) 12:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)  See Sockpuppet_investigations/Lebronto23. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 20:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article draft doesn't even say what she's supposedly notable for. Maproom (talk) 23:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: Just added notable focus under career per WP:AUTHOR. A Creative behind critically acclaimed work. AKinderWorld (talk) 08:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep I do not see this as excessively promotional in the current version. I have not reveiwed the history, because tha shouldn't matter. I don't think thes establishes notability at present, and at an AfD if no better sources were presented, and IF a WP:BEFORE search couldn't find any, i would probably favor deletion. But this isn't AfD, and unsubmitted drafts are not expected to fully establish the notability of the topic, and failing to do so is not a reason for deletion. Neither is having been created by a paid editor (although some editors would like to change that policy) In fact, i do not see any policy-based reason for deletion. It may be that as sources are found and added, this will be transformed into an article about the camp. But it is not uncommon for the founder of a notable organization (which this camp may well be) to also be notable primarily for the process founding the organization. Not always, but often enough. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 03:58, 6 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.