Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Isaiah Oluwatobiloba

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: no consensus defaulting to keep. If the draft is repeatedly resubmitted or otherwise edited tendentiously, feel free to bring it back here. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Isaiah Oluwatobiloba[edit]

was copied to mainspace at Icepondis so this is a duplicate. Further, mainspace article has been prodded for gng failure, sockpuppetry involved in the creation of this-but user wasn't bolcked prior to this creation so g4 not met Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update nom: sockpuppetry was to avoid scrutiny over coi and paid on the masters account thus, this draft was created in violation of COI and PAID. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep to see whether the mainspace article is deleted. If the article is deleted, the draft can continue to be kept. If the article is kept, this draft can be redirected, or moved into mainspace and redirected. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is yet another misguided good-faith nomination to delete a draft because there is an article, when the procedure should be to redirect the draft (which does not require a discussion). Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Robert McClenon:, If the article is deleted for gng failure and the draft kept, the draft will only end up being deleted as abandoned though. This also could make it seem like the sockpuppetry involved was not dealt with, the master account was blocked for username issues, with promo, paid and coi concerns, this draft was created by a sock essentially in violation of said policies (I should have put that in the nomination tbh rather than just saying "sockpuppetry involved"). Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - see here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Africa boyz/Archive. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - If the article is deleted for GNG failure, the draft is kept for six months in case GNG can be established. There is no need to rush to get rid of drafts that will expire anyway. Some editors like to push to keep draft space and user space free of junk. All that does is to create work for the volunteers who act as the regular editors at MFD. I know you are trying to help. I know you are trying to help. It doesn't help the encyclopedia. All it does is create work for those of us who participate in MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - And the sockpuppetry violations with COI and paid violations? 17:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lavalizard101 (talk • contribs)
        Given that sockpuppetry was involved in its creation, there is a chance the creator will continue to violate sock meaning the draft may never be elligible for 613. 11:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lavalizard101 (talk • contribs)
comment Article now up for afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Icepondis. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
pinging ppl from that afd for the view on the draft: @Princess of Ara and Celestina007:. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping @Lavalizard101, I have no prejudice against the draft being kept for now but I doubt that It'll be quiet enough for a G13 in future due to the persistent sock puppetry.
Princess of Ara 07:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's one of my worries that it will never be elligible for g13 if socks start popping up again.

@Robert McClenon: what's you opinion on the sockpuppetry matter seeing as you haven't talked about it above. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the mainspace article is likely to be deleted.Jackattack1597 (talk) 12:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete draft because both draft and article are work of sockpuppets. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nb. The Icepondis article was deleted per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Icepondis. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Icepondis. Add COI tag unless it's been neutralized. Other than the excessive bolding, which can be removed, I don't see enough for G11 yet. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Its not being g11'd (as that would be a speedy delete rather than discussion). Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:16, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if this were submitted as is it would need to again be declined, if not submitted it can be ignored and left for WP:G13. The fact that a page was created by a user who was later blocked is not a DELREASON, and there's extensive discussions establishing that in the archives. If there is a need to delete due to the socking then an SPI clerk will handle it. AFC is the preferred venue for COI submissions, so no issues there. Basically my !vote is per WP:DMFD this has not yet been tendentiously resubmitted nor is it being tendentiously maintained in draftspace, although if they start to do the later it might be worth keeping around anyway as a honey trap. So yes this is the spammy creation of upe, but it's noindexed and impossible to find, and the links are nofollowed and do nothing for seo, and once it's off the mfd list the pageviews will drop to nil. This is highly likely to be deleted in the end but there's no need to take up community time with an mfd. Regards, 91.221.17.220 (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2021 (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.