Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Zwak News

 __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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 05:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Zwak News

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

This draft was rejected on July 4, and has since been resubmitted 4 times, getting rejected each time due to lack of sources. It got brought up today in the -help chat on IRC, where we discovered that one source, darulsehat.net (since then removed by me), appears to have been created purely to serve as a source (it contains only a default website template and one article, which is on the subject of the draft), and other sources are a mixture between seemingly gibberish, mentioning the source once, not mentioning the source at all, saying Zwak News said X, and quoting Zwak news. Combining this, I do not see this draft ever becoming a article, and since it is being repeatedly resubmitted without addressing any of these concerns I'm nominating it for deletion. -- Asartea   Talk  &#124;  Contribs  14:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - The sourcing has never been anywhere approaching acceptable, and the editor's only interest appears to be trying to promote this news site via Wikipedia. Google returns literally nothing but social media sites. (string: "zwak news"). —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 15:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - I am not entirely sure why I didn't nominate it for deletion when it was resubmitted after a previous rejection. This is going nowhere, and should be sent to nowhere.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:45, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - tendentiously resubmitted and not going anywhere near mainspace any time soon. firefly  ( t · c ) 08:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of reliable sourcing. See also this Teahouse discussion. The creator has given no evidence or even specifics for their claims of being asked for money for approval of the article, and, WP:AGF notwithstanding, we don't have to believe such a startling statement. Bishonen &#124; tålk 08:51, 25 August 2021 (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.