Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Ravi(Anchor)

 __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 19:40, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Ravi(Anchor)


Non-notable, repeatedly submitted sock honeypot. CHRISSY MAD ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  13:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is an extreme case of what needs deleting. Sometimes the question is whether to delete a draft or to sanction the author, but in this case sanctioning the author isn't enough, because the author keeps creating sockpuppets and the sockpuppets get blocked and it goes on and on and on.  In view of the recurrent sockpuppetry, the title should be salted to prevent re-creation, although there is not yet any history of re-creation, because there is a history of re-creating the socks.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, rename Anchor Ravi. The claims ("one of the best ...") checks out to sources.  Ghits are fine.  Five articles mention "Anchor Ravi".  The main motivation for deletion here I am left to guess is that the author is blocked for sockpuppety, and probably some WP:PAID, but the case has not been made.  Appears notable, sockpuppety & WP:PAID issues aside, I would support mainspacing.  NB.  A real PAID throwaway sockpuppet would not be using AfC.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment to User:SmokeyJoe - I have so seen paid throwaway sockpuppets using AFC. Regardless of why the nominator requests deletion, the sockpuppetry is reason enough to delete.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - So is the tendentious resubmission a reason to delete. Some of the delete records have been stripped, but can be seen in the history.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Did I see somewhere that there is an AfC tool that makes it easy to check for improvements since the previous submission? That diff would help the "tendentious", or rather the "resubmitted without improvements" reason for deletion.  This counts as a resubmission without improvement, though I note in passing the old observation, the submitter seems to believe that communication occurs through pressing the "submit" button.  A simple AfC "reject" option would fix this, proposed here.  Robert, you have not commented on it, except for advocating rapid G11 tagging when it applies (I agree).  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - The fact that the subject is probably notable should not be a reason to keep. This draft will never be ready for article space with the sockpuppetry, because it needs to be blown up by deletion and started over.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Socks? The 5 authors appear to be socks, all blocked:
 * The following three just processed the draft, page authors, but not draft authors can I say?
 * (I agree with his review, the draft contains WP:PUFFERY)
 * Delete due to the sockpuppetry of all draft authors.
 * Note that the subject appears notable, although a more careful analysis may reveal that the sources I looked at are non-independent. It is likely that this upcoming TV presentor & actor is actively engaged in self promotion.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The following three just processed the draft, page authors, but not draft authors can I say?
 * (I agree with his review, the draft contains WP:PUFFERY)
 * Delete due to the sockpuppetry of all draft authors.
 * Note that the subject appears notable, although a more careful analysis may reveal that the sources I looked at are non-independent. It is likely that this upcoming TV presentor & actor is actively engaged in self promotion.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete due to the sockpuppetry of all draft authors.
 * Note that the subject appears notable, although a more careful analysis may reveal that the sources I looked at are non-independent. It is likely that this upcoming TV presentor & actor is actively engaged in self promotion.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note that the subject appears notable, although a more careful analysis may reveal that the sources I looked at are non-independent. It is likely that this upcoming TV presentor & actor is actively engaged in self promotion.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment As best as I can recall without looking at the page history, I've only acted upon the article at AfC or perhaps made a minor copy edit, as well. I would support a consensus of "Delete", should one emerge, but I will abstain from recommending that outright, since I'm somewhat involved. Striker force Talk 20:50, 7 August 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.