Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:BrazyXay

 __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:  keep. ‑Scottywong | [squeal] || 08:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Draft:BrazyXay

 * – (View MfD)
 * Izno (talk) 21:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

This problematic draft is promotional in tone, and relies on sources by a single author which are also suspiciously promotional. Accounts associated with this draft have been banned for suspicious edits. At least one account associated with this account has engaged in lobbying-type behaviour to have this draft accepted. A removal (but preserving the talk page) would save a great deal of potentially wasted editor / reviewer time. Salimfadhley (talk) 08:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - It needs declining, and it has been declined. It doesn't need deletion at this time.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Close. This is an AfC review issue, not an MfD matter.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I had originally nominated this via AfC - you get an error message saying that it has to go via MfD. --Salimfadhley (talk) 07:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You should ask at WT:AfC. This draft has not even been AfC-REJECTED.  Has it been tendentiously resubmitted?  Does it violate something at WP:NOT.  If not, just DECLINE/REJECT, and leave it for G13, or unexpected improvement.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak delete well, it has been resubmitted in a way I would call tendentious. The person who created the first version of the draft in July (when it was speedy deleted as spam) has been globally locked for cross wiki spamming, after promoting this individual with several different accounts. (CheckUser investigation at Commons leading to a CU block there for the draft creator and two other accounts, followed by a global lock at MetaWiki.) This version of the draft was created in one single edit as the first edit of a brand new account, including a (copyrighted) photo uploaded by another new account to Commons. As I said on the draft creator's user talk page: s/he might deny being a paid editor, but their actions are indistinguishable from those of a paid editor. I would prefer to see this deleted to throw a spannner in that paid outfit's work rather than because of the subject, hence a weak delete – but it is not irrelevant that there is no way this draft could become a mainspace article now since there it is very evident that the person is not (yet) notable. --bonadea contributions talk 06:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I would prefer to see discovered UPE product preserved for the record, to help track and study these promotional misuses of Wikipedia. Deletion serves to hide their mistakes, clearing the slate for them to try again.  I made a proposal for this at Quarantine promotional Undeclared Paid Editor product.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - It has already been declined, which is sufficient action on the page at this time. If more issues arise, e.g. clearer tendentious resubission, it can be revisited here if desired. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 10:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - It has been declined. It belongs where it is. Lightburst (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 21:05, 3 October 2020 (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.