I don't understand how my point could not be grasped, but I'll take the position that it was my failure to adequately explain the thought, so I shall try again.
I have seen a number of fairly brief posts that appear to reflexively reject the notion that naked shorts exist, with the sole justification appearing to be that there are no naked shorts because to conduct naked shorting is illegal.
I disagree with the premise that an illegal activity should be written off as something that couldn't possibly happen simply because it is illegal.
In the financial sector, where naked shorting would be occurring, it is well known that illegal acts are committed, often on a grand scale. So why is the illegal act of naked shorting any less likely to actually be happening than any of the other illegal acts that happen often in the financial sector?
A note: When discussing a concept, sometimes that's all there is to talk about. That's why it's a concept. I assumed the reader would know that the value of the concept is that it may be applied to the subject matter to which I was responding. My mistake.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
