Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Ralph Weber

 __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.  bibliomaniac 1  5  22:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Ralph Weber

 * – (View MfD)

This draft is being resubmitted to AFC and declined, and is unlikely to survive in article space because an article was already deleted from article space in Articles for deletion/Ralph Weber (businessman). The current version of the draft is non-neutral; that could be dealt with by editing, but the subject has still be found to be a non-notable businessman. Also, the author and submitter has removed the record of previous declines, and the statement about the article deletion; see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Ralph_Weber&type=revision&diff=949500703&oldid=948960745&diffmode=source This removal appears to be an effort to game the system.

The author and submitter has not yet been asked about conflict of interest, but their behavior is typical of COI editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, premature time bring this to MfD. I don’t see tendentious resubmission in the history (please show diffs). The subject is plausibly notable (though probably not). The draft has not been REJECTED by AfC.  The nom’s concerns would be more appropriately raised at User talk:Chicadita. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment -User:SmokeyJoe says that the subject is plausibly notable (although probably not). That is true, but the subject was found not to be notable in February 2019, when Ralph Weber (businessman) was deleted after Articles for deletion/Ralph Weber (businessman).

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chicadita&type=revision&diff=949504473&oldid=948960742&diffmode=source A draft was then submitted, and was declined at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Ralph_Weber&type=revision&diff=948960745&oldid=948959845&diffmode=source The submitter then deleted the AFC record when adding sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Ralph_Weber&type=revision&diff=949500703&oldid=948960745&diffmode=source The AFC decline says not to delete it. Stripping off the AFC decline is coloring outside the lines in order to game the system. It was then resubmitted via: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Ralph_Weber&type=revision&diff=949502235&oldid=949502182&diffmode=source There were two submissions that cannot be seen in the draft at MFD without viewing the history. The first was the re-creation of an article that was seen by a deleting administrator to be substantially the same as the deleted article. The second was the submission of the draft to AFC, but the record of that resubmission was stripped.
 * On 7 April 2020, Ralph Weber (businessman) was created again, and deleted as G4. This is a non-obvious but tendentious creation.  The re-creator was User:Chicadita, as is indicated by this diff on their talk page:


 * The draft was not Rejected the first time it was sent to AFC because it was not obvious that is was the same person who had been deleted twice, because of name gaming, changing the title from Ralph Weber (businessman) to Draft:Ralph Weber.

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps tendentious resubmission should in general be treated as a conduct issue and dealt with by conduct sanctions. In recently past years, we have normally treated it as a content issue to be dealt with the deleting the draft.
 * Delete per nom, considering Articles for deletion/Ralph Weber (businessman). If the topic has already been deleted at AfD for being non-notable, then WP:THREE is the threshold to overcome. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * User:Chicadita I will edit again using the WP:3 rule Chicadita (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I see very little if not zero indication that this subject is notable. A couple passing mentions doesn't come close to overcoming a deletion via AfD. Article created has pretty obvious COI or UPE concerns per WP:QUACK and now with the repeated removal of deletion discussion templates, it's obvious that their intent is to not actually try to create a formal, neutral article. I've issued an only warning for the MfD template removal and request a COI disclosure. If these are ignored then ANI should be considered as well. Sulfurboy (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2020 (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.