Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Global Database

 __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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 13:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Global Database


No indication of satisfying WP:GNG. David. moreno 72   13:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. aResubmitted ten times without improvement.  DGG ( talk ) 14:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - As noted above, submitting 10 times in less than a month is even more tendentious than we normally see. The real question is not whether to delete the draft but whether and how long to block the IP address.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - and salt. No decent sourcing. No Notability. Infuriating persistence. KJP1 (talk) 17:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as promotion all based on two non-independent sources. Arguably G11-able.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as tendentious resubmission. If it has been submitted for AfC 10 11 times, you'd think that they would have improved it some based on the feedback. Deleting one sentence and resubmitting is pretty pointless. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete this is the most rejected draft in the system according to this new report User:JJMC89_bot/report/AfC_decline_counts See Wikipedia_talk:The_future_of_NPP_and_AfC for a discussion on dealing with these outliers Legacypac (talk) 02:49, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. 11 rejects, and the IP still not welcomed?  Ok, it makes sense that the reviewers of hopeless submissions are not in a frame of mind to “welcome” the submitter.  As User:Andrewa points out for me, language can constrain thinking, the language here is not right.  We don’t template someone’s user talk page with welcome someone to make them “welcome”, but to give them the important beginners links for beginner reading.  Without a welcome template, there is no reason to think they person has seen WP:5P. The AFC selection of pushed links are a different set.  Newcomers shouldn’t be welcomed *after* making a bad submission, but before.  I think new users should be auto-welcome templates on registering, and am still wondering how this can be made to happen.  The author here is an IP. Maybe IP talk pages should be auto welcome templated on their first edit.  Maybe IPs should be instructed to WP:Register in order to create their first page, even in Draft or User namespaces. If every user had their talk page created by auto-welcoming, then IPs, which are always to be invited to edit, would never have need to create another’s user_talk page if not already created in order to leave a message. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Requiring IPs to register to create any page stops them from creating talkpages for dxample which is going the wrong direction. Most websites make you register an account to do anything so maybe not a bad idea, but it will not fly. Legacypac (talk) 05:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As already noted, either auto-create all talks pages, or allow them to create talk pages. It will fly, either that or this problem will break Wikipedia.  Spammers are growing in number, experienced editors are declining in number.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. It has been declined for 12 times, even more than WP:IAS. Highly unlikely to be an article. Omega68537 (talk) 05:10, 18 March 2018 (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.