Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Devdiscourse

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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 due to repeated resubmission of the draft (including previous userspace versions). RL0919 (talk) 13:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Devdiscourse


Fails WP:NCORP. After half a dozen declines, this is still basically just spam for devdiscourse.com. Looking at the author's contributions, they've been adding link-spam to many different articles, and probably worth blocking as WP:NOTHERE -- RoySmith (talk) 18:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - The issue isn't whether it fails corporate notability, because it is a draft, but whether it isn't likely to pass corporate notability and whether its submission is tendentious. Yes to both.  It has improved since I last declined it, but not enough, and the author has had plenty of time to try to be constructive.  This is not a conduct forum to discuss link spam.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Decidedly notability-failing, including WP:CORP-failing, drafts should have the afch Reject option applied, bring to MfD only if it is removed or ignored. Drafts can be deleted for tendentious resubmissions, please link a diff showing a resubmission with no improvement.  Yes, this draft is hopeless, but MfD is not for the airing of all hopeless drafts.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - It isn't clear what User:SmokeyJoe is saying: Keep, or Neutral. As to a diff showing resubmission, I have been here almost as long as SmokeyJoe, and at least as regularly, and it has been my understanding that the history of a draft speaks for itself, and it is not necessary to show diffs when any editor here can see the history.  This draft was submitted repeatedly in multiple copies, and the author was warned that repeated submission of multiple copies may result in deletion.  (I provided that caution, which is canned.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I am saying that this draft is on the path where it should and will be deleted, but the path is for the draft to be REJECTed, and left for six months until is is deleted by the G13 process. Roy should explain why in this case the standard path should not be followed.  I think there is no case here, as there usually isn't, for a draft that is not speediable, and not tendentiously resubmitted, to be nominated at MfD.
 * thank you for your comments. As always, what you write is worth reading and considering, even in cases like this where I disagree.  WP:G13 is for abandoned drafts, where an editor walks away, and we're just sweeping up the cobwebs.  This draft has been re-submitted multiple times, with no substantial improvement.  Each submission resets the G13 clock, while adding to the review workload.  So a more active approach is needed.  I try to be conservative about WP:CSD, and I'm not quite sure this meets WP:G11; bringing it to MfD is a good way to solicit other opinions.   I don't see how rejecting it at this point is actually useful.  What are the possible next steps for a rejected draft?  It could sit around for six months, then get G13'd.  In which case, we might as well just get rid of it now.  Or, as you explain above, the rejection could be ignored or removed, and then we just end up back here anyway.  I don't see any possible future path that leads to this being accepted.   -- RoySmith (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * On showing diffs, on showing one diff, showing one resubmission without improvement, I think that should be required, and it should also be considered a basic courtesy.  The nominator does not allege tendentious resubmission, not simply put, but I can read it as implied.  Am I, as an MfD reviewer, being asked to examine the draft history for resubmission without improvement?  I don't think that is reasonable, that would be below the minimum standard for an MfD nomination.  I have noted in many previous draft MfDs that a nominator has made a false claim of tendentious resubmission, which is a good reason to always ask for a diff.  Thankfully, false claims of "tendentious resubmission" have become uncommon.
 * MfD is not for requesting user blocks. If the author is block worthy, block him.  If the page is spam, WP:CSD it.  If it is not spam, leave it for G13.  "still basically just spam" is an ambiguous statement.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * “After half a dozen declines”? I guess we are not looking at the same thing.  I see a reasonable response to a poor explanation for one decline. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we're not looking at the same thing. I'm looking at Draft:Devdiscourse  There's five official declines, and my MfD nomination is effectively the sixth.  -- RoySmith (talk) 23:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I see. My problem is that the declines are not in the history of this page.  The declines were merged from User:Ab sonepat/sandbox.  This is part of reason I ask nominators to provide at least one diff of a resubmission without improvement, I find it painful to verify, and when I do I sometimes find a nominator has made false claims.  Here is an example diff from the sandbox, that I think shows the author trying to follow the instructions and feedback in good faith.  I remain embarrassed and appalled at this AfC style of communication that so obviously fails as effective communication.  Wikipedia mainspace did the same thing in 2001 before realizing that editor talk needs to go on a separate talk page.  AfC should catch up and stop doing in-template on-the-draft talk posts.  I do not support deletion.  Wikipedia/AfC should learn from these recurring mistakes and do thing better.  Stop burning enthusiastic newcomers who get caught in the AfC trap.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC) My message at User_talk:Ab_sonepat, for example.  I note the appalling state of his userpage, littered so with templated impersonal messages, the user may have no idea that talk pages are intended for talking.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 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.