Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Nimika Ratnakar

 __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) 08:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Nimika Ratnakar

 * —  python coder    (talk &#124; contribs) 02:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * —  python coder    (talk &#124; contribs) 02:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * —  python coder    (talk &#124; contribs) 02:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * —  python coder    (talk &#124; contribs) 02:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

At least three copies of the autobiography of this actress have been submitted by at least two accounts. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Actress Nimika Ratnakar has also been filed. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. The first three sources at User:Ratnakar nimika/sandbox easily sustain a draft, and are possibly good enough alone to justify mainspacing.  Respond to duplicates by redirecting.  I suggest by default to redirect the new to the old, discourage new forks by sending the authors back to the first page.  Remnd them of WP:MOVE.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - It appears that User:SmokeyJoe and I are in disagreement on two points. The first is whether spamming multiple copies of a draft is enough of an annoyance to the reviewers to warrant deleting the main copy of the draft, or at least a reason to consider deleting the draft (as opposed to redirecting the extra copies).  The second is how and whether to enforce the autobiography policy in itself, whether we should help submitters with their autobiographies, pretend the authobiographies don't exist and let them expire, or take the conflict of interest into account as a deletion reason.  If he is disagreeing on one of those points, then he and I disagree.  If there is something else, please explain.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Q. The first is whether spamming multiple copies of a draft is enough of an annoyance to the reviewers to warrant deleting the main copy of the draft, or at least a reason to consider deleting the draft (as opposed to redirecting the extra copies).
 * A. Premise nitpick: You are using "spamming" loosely, like the kids do. A handful is not spamming. I will assume that a normal meaning of "spamming" is not meant here.
 * A. No.  A few redundant page creations does not warrant deletion, per policy, clearly written, at WP:ATD.  "Redirect" is the answer.  Come back to MfD only if reverted or explicitly disagreed with.
 * Q. how and whether to enforce the autobiography policy in itself,
 * A. Nitpick answer. Autobiography is not a policy, but a guideline.  And as a guideline, it is not even referenced from WP:Deletion policy, unlike WP:N, WP:DEL8.  The person disagreeing with me in not appearing conversant with deletion policy.
 * A. Autobiography is weakly worded advice that people can ignore.  It is good advice, because autobiography writers seem to always have terrible problems with selecting independent sources.  If someone were to propose strengthening Autobiography to give it teeth, I would support.  Until then, its status is less than WP:PRESERVE (Policy), which speaks against deleting anything potentially useful.
 * A. Yes, put them through WP:COI.  WP:COI has some teeth, unlike Autobiography.  See my edits earlier this year to WP:COI, these edits stuck.  Directrly editing a page with which you have an interest violates the behavioural guideline and thus is a reason for WP:BLOCKing.  It is not, however, a reason for deletion.
 * The something else that he is missing is sources that are plausibly good enough to sustain a claim of notability and meet WP:STUB is a strong reason to keep as a draft, and is a reason to consider mainspace, whatever the other concerns, barring WP:CSD and WP:CSD. This draft has such sources.
 * --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete blow it out as self promotion across multiple pages. Legacypac (talk) 18:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  python coder    (talk &#124; contribs) 02:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Promotion and test pages for promotion,  QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 15:21, 24 March 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.