Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Raween Kanishka (2nd nomination)

 __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) 15:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Raween Kanishka


Poorly sourced draft created by blocked sockpuppet. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:ACTOR Legacypac (talk) 18:14, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The block is only for one week. See Sockpuppet_investigations/Lakshani85/Archive.  That is not reason to delete a page.  "Fails WP:ACTOR" fails WP:NMFD.  I would like to see quick action taking against Undeclared Paid Editors (UPEs), but before deletion I would want presentation of objective evidence.  I have suggested at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion, where there is strong objection to deletion of UPE products, that a better solution is a collected alleged UPE content in a repository and blank it until the author makes a satisfactory explanation or declaration.  I am firming on that opinion, and so cannot support deleting due to the author being a UPE.  Therefore, there are no reasons for deletion that I can agree to.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * how about WP:OVERCOME? Legacypac (talk) 05:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Great essay. As I wrote at Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_60, I think for topic associated with promotion, usually companies, their products, and their founders and CEOs, but i guess also young aspiring actors, I would have the author *required* to submit the two to three best references that are independent, reliable, and discuss the subject directly.  Put the onus on the author to make it easy for reviewers to judge notability.  The problem with notability for judging drafts is that notability depends on sources that exist, not sources currently used.  It really is impractical.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:24, 8 March 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.