Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Association for the Defense of Animals and Nature

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. ✗plicit 11:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Association for the Defense of Animals and Nature[edit]

Okay, so I find myself not wanting to do this, but we're in a dangerous spiral of not-actually-getting-anywhere. The article that this draft is based off was deleted a couple of weeks back, and I opted to keep the draft undeleted so that it could theoretically be worked on (the AFD was primarily for notability purposes). However, IPs have been tendentiously resubmitting the draft, though they do seem to be slowly improving it as well. On the other hand, reviewers have been (what I feel is a bit excessively) reverting many of the IP edits for socking, even reasonable improvements to the page. So, we have two options; either delete the draft outright as unsuitable and unlikely to be successfully improved due to IP editing, or we let the IP improve the draft (i.e. we don't continually revert them) and actually give their reviews a chance to be, well, reviewed. Primefac (talk) 09:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for the sake of everyone's sanity, I have semi-protected the draft for the duration of this MfD. If anyone objects or thinks this is heavy-handed I am happy to reverse this decision. Primefac (talk) 09:46, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the clear consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association for the Defense of Animals and Nature. By default, an AfD consensus, whether “delete” or “keep”, should be respected for six months. That means, barring extraordinary new information or new arguments, if deleted it should not be re-created, or AfC submitted for six months. Just like how if consensus was to keep, it should not be renominated for deletion for six months (see WP:RENOM. An extraordinary case to recreate after deletion should be the WP:THREE standard. Anything else is wasting others’ time.

It’s ok to userfy off Draftify post AfD deletion, but if someone doesn’t understand the need to respect the AfD, then better to leave it deleted for six months, and to G4 any recreation. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a duplicate of this draft at Draft:Fondation Adan has been resubmitted by a sock account. Yeeno (talk) 18:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirected, thanks. Primefac (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Should Draft:Fondation Adan be deleted? Patachonica (talk) 02:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  It's fine as a redirect. Primefac (talk) 08:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Even when this page is deleted? Patachonica (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  User:Patachonica - A redirect to a deleted page can be tagged for G8. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I think that was contested, which is part of why it ended up at WP:REFUND, unfortunately. Star Mississippi 01:34, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  No, it was refunded because the draft was restored and someone complained about the redirects also not being restored; the redirects were completely unnecessary to keep (the "attribution required" reason was nonsense) and should have stayed deleted. Primefac (talk) 10:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all including the draft space versions and redirects. It was disruptively (re) created. Any established editor is welcome to work on it. No objection to one being left as a sock catcher, but I think that's a waste of editors' time personally. Star Mississippi 16:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to User:Primefac and anyone else - In my opinion, semiprotection should be used more often and more quickly on both the subject of any deletion debate and the deletion discussion itself. The seven days for a deletion discussion is time for an editor to get autoconfirmed. Semiprotection is very seldom heavyhanded. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to creation by sockpuppets and tendentious resubmission. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Why do the sockpuppets use multiple IPs for disruption? Patachonica (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2022 (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.