Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Bellingham Metro News

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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.  bibliomaniac 1  5  18:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Bellingham Metro News

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

Spam. This article (now draft) was written by someone affiliated directly with the article subject, per his userpage. WP:COI. He also has repeatedly recreated it after it has been deleted. ♟♙ (talk) 03:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep per WP:NDRAFT, no rejection/repeated resubmission. —  csc -1 04:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - See Articles for deletion/Bellingham Metro News, and subsequent G4, as the rejection and resubmission, and see also the history of conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Robert McClenon, I do not see a “rejection and resubmission”. Please help. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * User:SmokeyJoe - I thought that the analogy was clear, but it clearly was not clear. I meant to see the AFD as the equivalent of rejection, because both AFD and Rejection are based on GNG.  The G4 was the equivalent of a resubmission after rejection, a tendentious effort to continue to push the article.  So the AFD and G4 are the equivalent of rejection and resubmission, and so are a basis for MFD.  I understand that you may disagree as to how close the analogy is.  But there is a history of pushing the article after a consensus decision (and AFD, unlike a rejection, is by the community).  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:51, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * AfD deletion is not to be conflated with AfC Rejection. The criteria are very different. The editor being slow to understand stuff is not a reason to delete. You analogising here is really bad.
 * It is now a draft. It has been declined, correctly.  Has it been tendentiously resubmitted after declines, or resubmitted with no improvement, or resubmitted often rejection?  If not, MfD is premature.
 * ”Spam” was a reason based on WP:NOT, but I disagree that it is spam. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment It has also been speedied as a re-creation, and seeming draftified multiple times , . ♟♙ (talk) 13:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt because creator refuses to accept consensus and keeps forum shopping his business. Star   Mississippi  18:18, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. The AfD deletion decision was for GNG and COI issues.  Both of these mean that draftspace should be used, and neither are a deletion reason in draftspace. “Repeatedly recreated”?  Please provide links.  “Creator refuses to accept consensus”?  Evidence of this is not provided. I disagree that the draft is spam. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Replying to User:SmokeyJoe, who asks for links: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bellingham_Metro_News&action=edit&redlink=1
 * See the G4 after the AFD, and then see another creation in article space, which was then moved to draft space by User:John B123. The evidence of the creator refusing to accept consensus is the two re-creations in article space after the AFD, which is a consensus process.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The G4 was in mainspace. This does not carry over to draftspace, especially not when the issue was GNG and COI. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It has been submitted once only, and is declined, with a suitable comment. It was not rejected. It has not been tendentiously resubmitted.  Standard AfC process says to leave it, for improvement or G13.  Bringing it to mfd prematurely is wasting editors time. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * here is what I take as a clear refusal to accept consensus that his newspaper is not notable. If it were notable, people unconnected would want to write it, not need to be begged since 2017.  Star   Mississippi  14:17, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That’s not a draftspace reason for deletion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:31, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, threading issue. I was responding to your request: Creator refuses to accept consensus”? Evidence of this is not provided.. I respect that we disagree and wasn't disagreeing with your keep, as neither of us is objectively correct. Star   Mississippi  01:35, 9 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt - the continued recreation of a non-notable subject is just wasting everybody's time. --John B123 (talk) 07:36, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - I do not consider it to be spam. It is not a candidate for G11.  My !vote to Delete is based on other reasons.  I understand SmokeyJoe's defense; I just disagree.  Robert McClenon (talk) 12:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Does not appear especially promotional. COI does not automatically mean blatant promotion. J I P  &#124; Talk 19:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as G4 recreation and resubmission of the same content as what was up for AFD. If the draft was completely rewritten from editors without the COI then consider leaving it alone.  AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 15:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment if the newspaper is notable locally, it should be mentioned by Bellingham, Washington article along with the other local newspapers and magazines. AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 15:35, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This is true. I wish it was in policy that subtopics should have to have a mention, a stable mention, in a parent article before someone starts drafting. Same if they want to write directly into mainspace.  This is similar to my belief that forking to draftspace, unless with the notification and agreement at the article talk page, is a bad idea.
 * Logically, this means "Redirect to Bellingham, Washington". SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt. The author's 2-year-old group blog was not notable when it was deleted, is not notable now, and is not going to become notable in the next six months. G13 is usually a good way to delete such drafts. However, given the author's many-year history of disruptive editing and attempted self-promotion (illustrated by the warnings on User talk:Gonzafer001 and their recent topic ban from creating new articles on any subject with which they are connected), prompt deletion is appropriate to avoid wasting further community resources. We don't want the author to create another sockpuppet to push this topic, and it would be regrettable if any honest draft rescuer wasted their time on it. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, not repetitive or disruptive enough to delete in draft space.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, needed to be declined, was declined, and should now be ignored. There's been some mainspace tendentiousness, but thus far that hasn't extended to draftspace resubmission, if it later does then bring things here, otherwise no need to take up anyone's time with an mfd, in the absence of an WP:NMFD reason just leave for g13. Regards, 81.177.3.8 (talk) 17:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Question is it normal for MfDs to be open this long or did this one get lost? Even if it's a no-consensus, I feel like it should be closed. Star   Mississippi  17:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say it's normal, but nor is it unheard of. If for some reason you would like to expedite things you can always file a request at WP:CR. Regards, 81.177.3.8 (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks IP 81! Helpful to know. I'll keep an eye to see if it doesn't close in another few weeks, and if not I'll file it there. Star   Mississippi  18:21, 15 September 2021 (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.