Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Heaven Sent Gaming

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 all. JohnCD (talk) 10:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Heaven Sent Gaming

The original Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heaven Sent Gaming attracted a whole bunch of SPAs making poor arguments for keeping the article. It was deleted, recreated, deleted via another AfD, and repeatedly recreated and CSDed until finally salted. Then several of the users involved (and a couple others) created the Drafts nominated here and began linking to drafts from the mainspace. Reverted, now they're adding links over at Wikidata. I didn't have much of a problem with this as it's technically within the scope of Wikidata to link to Drafts and while clearly promotional they are Drafts. But today all of the major editors working on these pages were blocked as sock puppets. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Smile Lee. Now they're promotional Drafts with no chance of being moved to the article space, created by sock puppet accounts focused on Heaven Sent Gaming articles/subjects. As far as I know, there is no clear procedure for deleting Drafts of this kind, but it looks like MfD is the best available option. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. I'm not sure of the precedent here, but if as drafts, my understanding is these are not held to the same high deletion standards as articles. I've been watching these from the sidelines, and the whole thing appeared to be a back-door attempt at creating a walled garden of promotional articles. Since they never actually got the reliable secondary sources they needed, they were headed towards deletion anyway. Now that the editor(s) has been confirmed as a sock-puppeteer, I don't see any point in preserving these. Grayfell (talk) 04:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above, and in the interest of not allowing Wikipedia to be used for promotional purposes. I've had Draft:Heaven Sent Gaming on my watchlist since the AfD and completely agree with Grayfell's walled garden comment. Their main independent source is a book published by a publisher who has no other publications... which raises the question of whether it is in fact independent at all. In any case, these will never become articles and so there is no point in keeping them, and every reason to remove them. --bonadea contributions talk 11:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Grayfell and Bonadea, with disclosure of being involved in both original AFDs and an undelete discussion. -- ferret (talk) 13:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Prior Discussion - You can read the post-AfD, post-DRV discussion on AN that allowed the continued existence of the article's content in draftspace. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, you're linking for background rather than because that discussion should have bearing here, correct? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Kinda, I guess? It's just that there wasn't ever really consensus to restore the AfD'ed+DRVendorsed article; it was recreated by the user, the deleted revisions were restored under that to preserve attribution, and I decided to let the Draft live at that moment. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete and Transwiki vote to the MfD, on my behalf. And, notify Salvidrim! that I have been able to Transwiki those articles over to a CC-BY-SA Fan Wikia, so that way attribution remains with the articles, just in case notability is ever no longer an issue with the subject, they can be modified for inclusion here without the possibility of COPYVIO. Smile Lee (talk) 09:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC) !Vote from draft author copied in the AfD because the user is blocked. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉[reply]
- Note: "Draft author" assumes Smile Lee admits sock puppetry, which he has not (the other accounts are primarily responsible for these articles). However, Smile Lee, his business, and coworkers are the subjects of these articles. That he expresses a wish to delete these, to me, shows good faith that he wants to contribute to Wikipedia in non-promotional ways, but I don't think "transwiki" in the sense of moving to another Wikimedia project makes sense to consider here given the COI (and if we're talking about Wikia, I don't think that's actually relevant to AfD). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - I was involved in all the past discussions, even the one Salv linked to, and I never believed a draft was warranted because I didn't feel it was anywhere near the level of being notable, nor did I believe that the "fans" writing it were going to be able to put one together in a neutral manner. Sergecross73 msg me 13:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all There is consensus none of these belong on Wikipedia, so there is no need for the drafts to exist either. Combined with the sock activity I think it's time these went away for good. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.