Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Gotti Rock Solid

 __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. We do in fact delete things that have been tendentiously resubmitted without any attempt to improve them. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Gotti Rock Solid


Autobio - told on last review that he does not meet notability criteria and declined before that on same reason. He just submitted again without making any changes so time to delete this effort as wasting AfC time. Legacypac (talk) 16:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

*Neutral - What is the purpose of tagging it as NSFW and nominating it for MFD at the same time? The NSFW tagging should be sufficient for now. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:07, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I nominated it for deletion over behavioral issues. I then declined and tagged to remove it from the pending list. I doubt simply declining sends a strong enough message this os not suitable. Legacypac (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. An autobiography that doesn't show notability, and the creator's evidently stopped improving it. This wouldn't survive in article space, an engine search shows this to be unnotable, so there's no potential for improvement. Draft space isn't a webhost, and repeated resubmissions are a waste of everyone's time. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose deletion. Deletion, of mfd tagging, is not the proper response to “behavioral issues“.  See Template messages/User talk namespace for a set of waning templates, and ask around there if more are needed. As for the draft, it is plausibly notable and if not is mergeable into Pressure (album). —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - What is the behavioral issue? I see that he was declined twice, but neither decline involved a statement that discouraged resubmission.  The notability decline templates state that notability has not been established.  Without qualification, they are equally applicable to a high school student with no references and to a state senator with no references (although one will never be accepted and the other will).  I do not see a behavioral or conduct issue in resubmitting a draft, unless a reviewer has said somehow not to resubmit it.  I would like to see a guideline that resubmission of autobiographies is tendentious, but I haven't seen it.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Subject was told "Comment: does not meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO Chetsford (talk) 00:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)" and declined twice. He resubmitted it with no changes when I found the page. Submitting without changes after being pointed to the notality guidelines he does not meet is not helpful. Legacypac (talk) 05:16, 28 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose Deletion We don't delete things based on people submitting them too many times. As far As i can tell, the page has potential. What you might find could break the deadlock is explaining to the writer what exactly they need to change, rather than posting a boilerplate response. For example, I see that the article has some sources. Are these sources not good enough for your review? if so, let the editor know which ones aren't sufficient and which are. Let them know specifically how many more sources they need for the article to be allowed. Focusing on better collegiate style reviewing, rather than coming here to delete things, might help the project retain more new editors. Egaoblai (talk) 21:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * We regularly delete pages that are submitted over and over without resolving the decline reason. Any editor is free to try to fix the page. If User:Egaoblai finds it meets WP:MUSICBIO they are free add the missing sources and send it to mainspace so we can consider sending this to WP:AFD. This user has requested it been sent to mainspace at least three times - asserting that it meets Notability criteria. Therefore the page should be judged on mainspace criteria. They have been notified and encouraged to participate in this discussion. It's quite possible the necessaary sources do not exist. Legacypac (talk) 00:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete due to tendentious resubmission. I see the argument that the subject might be notable, but, if lack of notability is not a reason for deletion, possible notability should not be a reason for retention.  If the author is clearly not being constructive in trying to improve a draft, then the seven days for the MFD are a satisfactory way for someone neutral and cooperative to volunteer to improve the draft.  In the absence of a sponsor, Delete.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 1 May 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.