Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Peggy Robles Alvarado

 __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. MER-C 16:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Peggy Robles Alvarado

 * – (View MfD)

This biography is being tendentiously resubmitted in multiple versions after Rejection without addressing the reviewer's concerns. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

See also Sockpuppet investigations/Zayna Palmer for obvious sock. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nom Legacypac (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Robert McClenon, Can you add slightly more to make your nomination massively more easy to review. Tendentitiously resubmitted without improvement?  Show a diff please so I can rapidly agree with (some people lie making the statements).  Are you really wanting delete “per WP:NOTPROMOTION”?  That is a higher level easier reason to delete.  It’s not as if the poor authors could improve it to make it not NOTPROMOTION. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per NOTPROMOTION. If notable call it WP:TNT. If notable, the biography must *begin* by drawing from reliable third party sources. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - This diff shows resubmission after rejection - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Peggy_Robles_Alvarado&type=revision&diff=893657888&oldid=892365124&diffmode=source . Note that the first version was submitted three times, once after rejection, and two sandbox versions were submitted under two different account names (sockpuppetry).  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - This is not a portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Each of the versions is not blatantly promotional. What is blatantly promotional is creating three copies to game the system.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't know if she is notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Suckpoppetry is also against Wikipedia policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Robert McClenon, I think you are consistently trying to use MfD as punishment for behaviour problems. Committed promotionalism, PAID, and Sockpuppettry are behavioural issues that I think should be responded to with warnings escalating to blocking.  An RfC confirmed that the community is good with tendentious resubmitting without improvement being grounds to delete a draft, which might be a precedent for MfD as a response to behavioural problems, but I think another RfC is needed before these other behavioural problems can be considered sufficient reason to delete a draft.
 * Are your golden multi dot points formatting meant to convey meaning? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * User:SmokeyJoe I see no golden dots here. If the bullets are golden, that is your browser-side.  You asked for reasons for deletion.  I provided reasons for deletion.  MFD is more reliable than ANI, and crud created by suckpoppets is still crud, and suckpoppets seldom create anything worth creating.  (If the poppet-sucker is already blocked, it is G5, so conduct is meant to be taken into account in deletion.)Robert McClenon (talk) 19:12, 23 April 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.