Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Gorilla Tag

 __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. ✗ plicit  01:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Gorilla Tag

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

declined numerous times; no evidence of improvement.  DGG ( talk ) 08:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: Has not just been declined, but rejected, but continues to be submitted in a completely unsuitable form and no attempt to address the issues. Greenman (talk) 10:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Due to the large number of WP:SPA accounts editing it, seems like an attempt at promotion that is heedless of any actual encyclopedia policies. WP:NOTPROMO applies and non-notable articles should not be allowed simply to advertise a product. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete - Declined 4 times, then rejected, then resubmitted on 9 August after the rejection. My own opinion is that resubmission after rejection should be ground either for deletion, or for sanctions against the submitter, or both, so the resubmission after rejection is reason enough to delete.  As Zxcvbnm says, the work of successive single-purpose accounts.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment to User:DGG - When nominating a draft that has been resubmitted after rejection, please say that it has been resubmitted after rejection. Some editors think that is a reason to delete.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This is certainly my position. My preferred explanation is that resubmission after rejection is an excellent trigger allowing for resolution at MfD. It (resubmission after rejection) is analogous to WP:DRAFTOBJECT, which leads to an AfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: Not per nom, User:DGG that is a poor nomination because most “ declined numerous times; no evidence of improvement” cases are best ignored, or processed, noting that every DECLINE is evidence that every reviewer finds the topic plausibly notable. MfD does not examine notability unless there has been tendentious resubmission after DECLINE, or resubmission after REJECT.
 * This draft should be deleted for the following combined reasons:
 * (1) Resubmitted after REJECT; and
 * (2) not notable, and reference bombed with WP:RSPSS “generally unreliable” sources and zero “generally reliable” sources.
 * SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:52, 11 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete euthanize this gorilla. Dronebogus (talk) 01:01, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - The last two special-purpose accounts to work on this draft have been blocked as sockpuppets of each other. The earlier accounts may have also been socks, but the CU data had expired.  Not G5 because there was no pre-existing block at the time that they messed with this draft, but a further indication that the editors working on this draft are bad-faith accounts.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:39, 12 August 2022 (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.