Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Lionel Reina

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 and salt . Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Lionel Reina[edit]

I recommend the deletion and salting of this draft. Lionel Reina has recruited a veritable army of paid editors (some disclosed, some not) to try and move this draft into mainspace, but it has repeatedly been returned to draft after assessments found him to fail the notability requirements. This one-man vanity project is becoming a time-sink for administrators and reviewers, and since there is no indication that the gang of sockpuppets and meatpuppets he employs is ever going to provide sufficient sources for notability, I posit that simply blocking the creation of this draft is the simplest and most efficacious solution. Alternatively, if people think the draft should be kept, admin-only move protection would avoid paid editors moving the article into mainspace without proper review again. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:20, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the draft and salt it with ECP (extended-confirmed protection) in both article space and draft space. Allow established editors to re-create neutrally, but this current version is not worth fixing and has been promoted and demoted too many times. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As one of the disclosed paid editors (no longer disclosed, as I wanted to be upfront about the payment when I submitted the AfC, but given the article was rejected, I haven't actually seen any money), I always felt like this one was on the edge of notability. I apologise for wasting anyone's time on this: I'm still learning to be selective and only work on things that are beneficial to Wikipedia as a whole. I have no issue with the page being salted as well. MrMarkBGregory (talk) 09:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the subject fails to pay his writers. Lovely Legacypac (talk) 09:49, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Paid editors are often only paid when their work is accepted. That is one reason why their posts at various Help Desks sometimes have a tone of desperation. Paid editors are not only a liability to Wikipedia, but to themselves. Maybe there is a lesson. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:38, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, and I'll bear this in mind going forward. MrMarkBGregory (talk) 17:09, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt (ECP) per nom. CoolSkittle (talk) 19:00, 26 December 2018 (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.