Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Righ Knight

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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Righ Knight[edit]

Page that was rejected twice in 2022 and then deleted as a stale draft.
In July of this year, the creator of this draft tried to bypass the AFC process by creating more or less the same article in mainspace without significantly improving it, but that was llsted for AFD within days. Once it became painfully clear that it was headed for the deletion bucket, the creator requested undeletion of the draft at RFU so they could "work on it", but has since failed to make even one further edit to the page in the entire two months since.
Multiple people in the AFD discussion failed to find any evidence that the kind of sourcing needed to salvage the article actually exists anywhere, so I don't know what kind of improvement is even really possible -- so I suspect that the real intention behind the undeletion request wasn't to actually work on it, but simply to "bypass" the AFD discussion by ensuring that the information stayed visible somewhere in Wikipedia. Creator is also a virtual WP:SPA, whose edit history has always revolved exclusively around trying to get Righ Knight into Wikipedia, so some form of conflict of interest is highly likely.
I just don't see the point in holding on to this any further if it's not getting worked on and the type of sourcing that would be needed to fix it with just isn't even in existence. Bearcat (talk) 03:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - There is no harm in keeping a draft of a non-notable person for six months in the empty hope that it will be worked on. Getting rid of abandoned drafts is what G13 is for. The nominator has restarted the calendar, which is a consequence of trying to get rid of semi-abandoned drafts. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:28, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The harm is when it becomes obvious that the real intention was to game the system by requesting undeletion only to effectively bypass AFD. As noted, the kind of sourcing needed to actually get him over WP:GNG doesn't even exist out there, so no significant improvement is even possible here. Bearcat (talk) 03:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While I considered 'keep' since this was only declined, not rejected, the SPA and COI aspect along with gaming the system has changed my mind. I was the RFU admin who restored it, and, though it was right to do so, I still support deletion. UtherSRG (talk) 12:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a web host and the behaviour of the editor makes it clear that the intent is to host this article somehow on Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 02:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Creator is trying to game the system and has no intention to properly make the page. Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Without adding much to more than sufticient explanation of the nominator, this surely is a violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:COI. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 00:17, 27 September 2023 (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.