Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Ricardo Costa

 __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. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 05:23, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Ricardo Costa

 * – (View MfD)

Self-promotional advertising by an editor with a direct conflict of interest, who has been previously blocked under other usernames but keeps returning to evade the block. These were all submitted to the AFC queue but then copy-pasted directly into mainspace without reviewer approval, and have been deleted at AFD due to their heavy advertorialism, so there's no value in holding onto the draft versions. As I've pointed out more than once, any attempt to get him and his work back into Wikipedia will need to be written in an encyclopedic tone rather than as advertising essays, and referenced to reliable sources rather than his own self-published content about himself, by somebody without a direct conflict of interest. Bearcat (talk) 23:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete All as conflict of interest drafts, not worth salvaging into a neutral version. Salt all titles as Extended-Confirmed Protected in both draft space and article space so that neutral editors can originate new versions if the subjects are notable.  Block the author again if they resume the personal attacks when the current block expires.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Bearcat, would you please link the mentioned AfD and the deleted mainspace titles, or their logs? Are there any WP:LTA or WP:SPI pages to reference?
 * Is the block you refer to the one of by User:Kudpung three days ago?  That was a behavioural block of only three days.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * He has prior editblocks under other usernames per Sockpuppet investigations/Tertulius; I literally didn't mention the current short-term editblock at all, as it has very little to do with the actual problem. (It speaks to his behaviour, obviously, but not to the actual quality of the articles in question.) The articles were originally deleted per Articles for deletion/Ricardo Costa (filmmaker), and then recreated and redeleted per Articles for deletion/Ricardo Costa (filmmaker) (2nd nomination). Bearcat (talk) 04:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nom and the clear consensus in the AfDs. I am not sure the normal criteria for SALTing is met, and prefer SALTing requests to go to WP:RfPP.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete all, salt, block per Robert McClenon. Determined self-promotion, and since intent has already been shown to re-create articles despite consensus, salting seems warranted. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have nominated three of the four pages as G5 because the author is a sockpuppet of a blocked sockmaster, as shown in the above discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - The IP is probably also the sockmaster, but the rules don't permit that to be verified, so this MFD can stay open for that one. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:35, 29 September 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.