Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Three-R-One (musical artist)
- 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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 00:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
User keeps recreating articles on non-notable band. See Three-R-One (musical artist), Three-R-One and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Three-R-One. I suspect blocked user User:Consumingfire1 is sockpuppeting as User:Lordofhost3 in order to keep recreating the article. I've previously nominated other related drafts at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Three-R-One unreferenced biographies. Del♉sion23 (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
This band is highly notable and I don't understand why you think the page should be deleted. P.S. It is also against Wikipedia rules to delete a draft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordofhost3 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- Note - that's incorrect. Drafts are subject to the same deletion processes as other pages on Wikipedia, including this process. I have a question - why have you recreated this page despite a full Article for Deletion discussion taking place previously? Exemplo347 (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Because they were all creating false statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordofhost3 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- That answer makes no sense. There was a full discussion and it was stated that your article should be deleted. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Why does their opinion matter and not mine? If they had searched for the band on the web they would have discovered that the band is VERY notable. Just because the band has never been mentioned on Wikipedia before doesn't mean that they aren't notable. I have also seen multiple pages on bands that aren't what all of you consider "notable" and I don't understand why those pages have been untouched by administrators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordofhost3 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- In these discussions, it is consensus that matters. As for your statement about other pages, it's pretty irrelevant - this discussion is about this specific page and no other. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Why are all of you so picky about everything? Why can't you just let people create what they want to create instead of having to monitor everything and delete it if it doesn't match your opinion of a good article? I can understand if it's a REALLY bad article but mine looks as good or better than a lot of the other ones I've seen on notable subjects and I don't understand why everyone wants to delete it so bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordofhost3 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- You can't take these things personally. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, after all, and its entries need to meet the General Notability Guideline. Getting angry about it isn't going to help. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - not a subject that could plausibly become an article, and disruptive recreations (per the deletion history of the articles linked above). --bonadea contributions talk 19:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- Delete and salt per WP:SNOW. No need for a full discussion process here - in fact, Speedy Delete WP:G4 probably applies in this specific case. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- Delete, salt, and add "Three-R-One" to title blacklist. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 21:44, 13 March 2017 (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.