Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Welcometothenewmillenium/Matthew Camp

 __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. ‑Scottywong | [prattle] || 01:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Welcometothenewmillenium/Matthew Camp

 * – (View MfD)

Improperly sourced draft whose creator is just repeatedly resubmitting it to the approval queue again without actually responding to reviewer feedback. I posted a very detailed explanation on September 8 as to why the existing sources are not good enough -- it's referenced to blogs, Q&A interviews in which he's talking about himself in the first person, and the subject's own self-published social media accounts, with no evidence of any third party third person journalism about him in real media -- but in the three weeks since, the creator has simply resubmitted it to the reviewer queue two more times without adding any new sources at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note I came here via the creator's talk page notice of this MFD, but there also exists Draft:Matthew Camp; if this discussion determines that the userspace draft should be deleted for notability purposes, this draft should probably make the grand exit as well. Primefac (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Neither drafts nor userpages are deleted “for notability purposes”. Notability can be a factor in deciding to delete, but not the sole factor.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per Bearcat. -Crossroads- (talk) 20:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - See Articles for deletion/Matthew Camp. This addresses whether the subject is notable.  We don't delete drafts for notability as such, but we do delete drafts for being tendentiously resubmitted, especially when we know that only new sources or new information will make the subject notable.  The two drafts are very similar; they are both probably copies of the deleted article.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete this copy for tendentious resubmission when the AFD has already established that the subject is not likely to be notable in the immediate future. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Leave the other draft alone for now. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment guys it's a draft relax and just let it be .. it is not a confirmed article it is only a draft! Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The fact that it's "only a draft" does not give you the right to keep submitting it to the review queue without actually addressing any of the reasons why it's been getting rejected by the people who've already reviewed it. Once the draft has been rejected, you have to improve it, in response to the reviewers' comments, before you're allowed to resubmit it for another review. Bearcat (talk) 17:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep, remove the AfC taggery, advise the author of WP:DUD. The nominator here has not shown a diff showing resubmission without improvement. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:23, 6 October 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.