Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Keletso Mc Keezy K Malatji

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. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Keletso Mc Keezy K Malatji[edit]

I originally CSD'd under G4 in the hope it would work ... it obviously didn't lol, Anyway the draft was created by a now blocked editor who I believe is "Mc Keezy K" and that same editor has done everything in their power to create articles all related to themselves, Anyway I have a feeling judging by the report at "MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist" they've created more than one article and all have apparently been deleted so either way I don't think this would have a chance in hell in article space, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 15:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Legacypac (talk) 16:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I gather there's actually a lot of wiggle room with G4 normally (compare Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Insight2016/sandbox to this case). In any event, this got deleted at AfD, which means it has no chance in articlespace. Something that has no chance in articlespace doesn't belong in draft space, except perhaps temporarily when a subject's chances are debated (e.g., the creator argues there is non-English source material that was missed at AfD and wants a chance to demonstrate its existence in the form of an article). The delete at AfD, when combined with the mere recreation of this content in draftspace, takes us into FAKEARTICLE territory. Furthermore, if this is a pure copy of the material that was deleted via AfD, this is an attribution hazard (cf. WP:UP#COPIES). I also note that this had been tagged as a copyvio by bot, but the tag was removed by the drafter: At present, the linked page contains no text, but because the confidence requirement for CorenSearchBot to use that particular tag is very high, I think we can safely assume the text was previously published where it says it was. Taken together, these factors add up to a delete. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:25, 16 March 2016 (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.