Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Elena Davies

 __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: delete. I have not salted as the article has not been repeatedly recreated; however if that becomes a problem please message me and I will apply it. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Elena Davies

 * – (View MfD)

This draft was already submitted once and rejected. Instead of either leaving it rejected or requesting advice, the author has resubmitted it. Please WP:ECP Salt. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Robert why is it a problem if the article incubates in draft, send it back is my advice. A second rejection is not terribly inconvenient? Salt is pretty harsh. Wm335td (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete if this article were in mainspace, it would be a redirect to the appropriate Big Brother season. The verbiage carries a promotional tone.  Does not meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG, and WP:TOOSOON if its just local programming for the Aftermath sections. That it is being resubmitted multiple times after rejection indicates the editor is not willing to fix it up to the standards expected.  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 21:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:DMFD, it has been rejected and clearly is not going to make the requirements for mainspace. Britishfinance (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - User:Wm335td, I will try to explain some of my thinking about deletion from draft space. First, Rejection was developed as being final, as opposed to Decline, which permits the user to improve the draft.  Since Rejection is final, I have very little tolerance for a draft that is resubmitted after it was rejected, unless of course the author has asked for and received advice.  Second, I will normally nominate a draft for deletion if the author was trying to game the system, and resubmitting another copy of the draft after the first one has been rejected is, in my view, gaming the system.  Other forms of gaming the system include stripping off the record of declines (since the decline notices say not to remove them), and submitting multiple copies of drafts when it is clear that the multiple copies are being submitted as a ruse.  (It is common enough for an author to submit multiple copies of a draft because they don't realize that they are submitting multiple copies, and in that case they should be told to select which one to work on.  A reviewer can usually tell whether multiple copies are being submitted through sloppy enthusiasm or to game the system.)  Third, Rejection is a way of telling the author that we will not be incubating the topic in draft.  Maybe this clarifies my thinking.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That is a helpful rationale I can agree with. Wm335td (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete and Salt per the nom. Rejected draft that is never going to become an article. I agree we should get rid of it to demonstrate that gaming the system will not be tolerated on Wikipedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:49, 17 November 2019 (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.