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: keep. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 23:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Madhab Chandra Jena

[edit]

While it is, or should be, unusual to bring a Draft to MfD, and less usual for the outcome of the discussion to be for deletion, I believe that this one has special circumstances. Every single contributor has been blocked as sock master or puppet. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Omkrishnajena. Certainly in this iteration it is just attracting more socks, and is likely to become a time sink, if it has not become one already. Jena may even be notable. If so then great, but this draft has become troublesome to Wikipedia, and is not the right starting place. I believe it should be deleted. There is little point in salting the draft title. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - On the contrary, having a draft that attracts obvious socks is an effective honey trap. The socks that continue to contribute to the draft can be blocked on site by admins, thus preventing these socks from causing vandalism to other areas of Wikipedia that they might otherwise cause if this draft were deleted.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 01:22, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as per WaltCip. The draft is being tendentiously resubmitted by sockpuppets, and action needed to be taken against the disruption by the sockpuppets. Action was taken by blocking the sockpuppets. If we leave the draft in place, the spammer may continue creating socks, and we can continue to block them. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sock puppetry is not a reason to delete a topic from draftspace, sock puppetry is a reason to put the topic in draftspace. The acceptance or decline of the draft will not depend on the standing of the authors, short of G5 applying, but on the quality of the sources. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:19, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 13:11, 9 January 2023 (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.