Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Sonyaa
- 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: keep. (non-admin closure) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 09:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
The two accounts that have edited this draft on a non-notable actress, and submitted it four times, are really one person, and have been blocked for sockpuppetry. Just delete it. If the subject has more success and becomes notable, a neutral editor can write an article from scratch. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
- keep. Looks notable. WP:SPI can track and handle sockpuppetry. Deleting the edit histories just stops non-admins from tracking. The current version is not TNT worthy, but is good to work with. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
- Keep I see no particular reason for deletion. It looks to me as if this is on the sdge of notability as things stand -- I note that one source refers to her as having been a beauty contest winner, which is not currently mentioned in the draft. SmokeyJoe is right on this one, IMO. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
- Delete – this has been a time sink for a while (also see the deletion logs for the mainspace articles under a couple of names); this draft has been declined four times in less than a year, and it is just not credible that it could become a Wikipedia article any time soon. The beauty contest "Miss India New Zealand" (which is mentioned in the draft) is not a notable competition. It's not just the sockpuppetry that's a problem, but also undeclared paid editing. If and when she does become notable there will be no shortage of uninvolved people to create an article that doesn't rely on scraping the barrel for possible notability. --bonadea contributions talk 09:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- MfD is not the place to argue notability, but it is plausible. Neither sockpuppetry or WP:UPE is a reason for deletion, not until Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Paid editing disclosues and deletion demonstrates consensus that it is. The draft has not yet been REJECTed by Afch, which is the standard process. If you think it should be deleted, then you should not have draftified it[1]. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- Weak keep and let it end up as G13. Or, new socks will be drawn to it, and can be indeffed as WP:DUCKs. -Crossroads- (talk) 01:59, 17 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.