Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Simon Edward Minter (Miniminter)

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. ✗plicit 23:37, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Simon Edward Minter (Miniminter)[edit]

Subject does not meet the general notability guideline, written from a fan's point of view, tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia, only sources are from Discography section, a draft is already available. Edl-irishboy (talk) 16:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt, although not for the reasons listed - On the one hand, the nominator has not provided a case for deletion of a draft. Drafts are not required to satisfy notability, which is only required for acceptance of drafts into article space. Drafts are not deleted for tone. However, this draft is an attempt to game the title when the primary title has been salted in both draft space and article space. See:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miniminter and
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Miniminter.

Both Miniminter and Simon Minter, his stage name and legal name, redirect to Sidemen, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miniminter found that he is not individually notable. However, he and the group have ultras, fanatical fans, who try to create an individual article for him by changing the title to bypass the salted redirection. This draft should also be deleted because it will never become an article and its resubmission under different names is tendentious. If his fans can find reliable sources providing significant coverage of him individually, they can request that the title be desalted. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per above.—Alalch E. 07:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, do not SALT. The only reason above the supports deletion is the tendentious resubmission, but that’s enough. The AfD was not a strong case that the content is forever unsuitable.

Do not WP:SALT because this is draftspace. It doesn’t matter if it gets G4-ed. SALTing leads to them trying alternative titles.

For the proponents of an article, read the advice at WP:THREE.

- SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The primary title has already been salted, and they are already trying alternative titles, because this is one of the alternative titles. WP:THREE is advice to a different sort of article proponent, the one who reference-bombs an article with a large number of low-quality sources. These ultras should read the guidelines on reliable sources and independent sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Read them sure, but WP:THREE includes the message that if you want it reviewed, do not include lots of sources, only the three best. This is especially the case for previously deleted topics. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, indifferent to salting. Salt evasion by apparent SPA that has now resorted to vandalism. AfD consensus from two years ago was that the subject is not notable; the notability has likely not changed since then, though I would listen to counter-arguments. Uhai (talk) 23:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.