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. ‑Scottywong | [yak] || 06:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Draft:Ntinda Vocational Training Institute-Kampala

Draft:Ntinda Vocational Training Institute-Kampala ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Draft:Ntinda Vocational Training Institute ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Draft:Ntinda Vocational Training Institute(NTVTI) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This draft, with various forms of the name in order to game the system, is being tendentiously resubmitted in draft space, and tendentiously moved into article space. This seems to be the work of single-purpose accounts, probably sockpuppets (but this isn't WP:SPI). Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC) reply

See also /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Ntinda_Vocational_Training_Institute(NTVTI) , an effort to restore the article to article space (appropriately declined by administrator).

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ntinda Vocational Training Institute, which deleted the article from article space, but the SPAs are trying to evade the deletion rather than discussing at either of the two forums that I directed. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete all and salt all with ECP type salt per nom, due to the repeated moved back to Main: namespace. Doug Mehus T· C 18:40, 22 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Redirect all to Ntinda, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ntinda Vocational Training Institute. Support the decision of the AfD. There is no purpose in deleting the new user's edits, doing so will make it hard for them to understand their own history, and harder for others to understand their history. Requesting WP:ECP is asking for more work than it is worth, and makes management of continued submissions only more difficult, because it just makes them go to a different title. If you really think ECP is needed, for to the proper place, WP:RfPP, and ask there. MfD is not a good forum for making page protection decisions, that is not the local expertise. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 09:54, 23 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• I strongly oppose redirecting from Draft: namespace, particularly for a recreated draft article to a broader topic article that has little correlation. They are unused redirects and, because of, frankly, bad policy in WP:RDRAFT, they would not likely be deleted at RfD. There's simply no need for a redirect. For clarity, I was only proposing salting the Main: namespace URL with ECP, not the Draft: namespace. If the concern is that the editor will not learn from their mistakes, I propose that the closer, Robert McClenon, or both, craft a custom message on the editor's talk page explaining, possibly one more time as I assume this may have already been done, why the draft cannot exist as an article in the main namespace and that if they repeatedly attempt to recreate the same draft and/or move it to main namespace, they risk having salt protection applied. As to the point that MfD is not a good forum for page protection, I respectfully disagree and should clarify that I was just
  endorse-ing salt protection at what level, should the closer wish to apply it. Ultimately, it's the closer's decision, and the closing administrator of this MfD has the same level of expertise as an administrator clerking at RfPP. Administrators have to be trained in the main areas of the project and, in fact, having been familiar with this MfD and previous AfD, they would be in a better position than an RfPP clerking administrator to decide whether salting is required. Doug Mehus T· C 15:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Redirecting is a good idea because the topic should be given mention at the target. Proposing salting of mainspace titles from mfd is procedurally wrong. There is a recent history of half baked page protection requests at mfd where it appears the requester has not read the notes at RFPP. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Salting is counterproductive in cases like these where the recreations are being done at unpredictable, inappropriate names - all it accomplishes is to make the recreation less likely to be noticed. It instead calls for a block or a blacklisting. These aren't appropriate redirects from mainspace, either, for the same reason, other than the existing one from Ntinda Vocational Training Institute. No opinion on the Draft: titles. — Cryptic 15:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC) reply

  Thanks, Cryptic, for clarifying that. In this case, do you think title blacklisting would be warranted, at least until such time as the editor can produce a draft to show notability has been met? Doug Mehus T· C 15:23, 23 February 2020 (UTC) reply

  Not yet; there haven't been enough mainspace recreations that I'd salt this yet, either, if the title wasn't a consideration. And I'd try blocking first in any case. (Move protection is certainly appropriate, though, and it's reasonable to discuss that here.) — Cryptic 15:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC) reply

  Move protection encourages new editors more to do copy-pasting. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:39, 23 February 2020 (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.