Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Dmitry Torner (2nd nomination)

 __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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Dmitry Torner

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

Draft of an article that has been repeatedly deleted, however the previous MFD on the draft specifically found no consensus to delete from the draft namespace. That no-consensus result disqualifies the article from speedy deletion. However, each recreation has been a bit-by-bit duplicate, and this draft is no different except for the position of some templates.

At the core, this is a draft about a living person who is provably non-notable. The author has made no effort to address the notability concern since the original article was deleted in October 2022, they just keep pushing it back to mainspace where it gets deleted again. While notability is normally considered to be a workable concern for drafts, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and the draft namespace is not meant to be an indefinite repository for content which would be deleted if placed in article space. Since that seems to be the only purpose for this draft, it should be deleted. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Courtesy ping and, since we were discussing my declined speedy deletion on my talk page. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Previous discussions (I thought the template did this):
 * Articles for deletion/Dmitri Torner
 * Articles for deletion/Dmitry Torner
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Dmitry Torner
 * -- Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete — enough already. No notability, no possibility of recreation as an article, no purpose to this draft. — Biruitorul Talk 15:10, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - In my opinion, the tendentious resubmission of a draft is more likely an WP:IDHT issue which might merit blocking the user who is doing so. In the meantime, I agree with deletion here. Although I adhere to WP:NDRAFT on principle, it's apparent that draftspace is being abused to prop up a deleted article. --⛵ WaltClipper - (talk)  14:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - Here we go again
 * Articles were deleted twice for lack of biographical notability. Drafts are not deleted for notability reasons.
 * Drafts of titles that were previously deleted should be rejected at AFC rather than merely declined. They do not need deleting.
 * Now that partial blocking is implemented, partial blocking is often an even better way to deal with tendentious resubmission of drafts than deleting the drafts.
 * Moving beyond the bureaucratic jargon, how is the project improved by keeping this draft for another 5 months and 24 days, rather than deleting it now? — Biruitorul Talk 10:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NDRAFT. Created in mainspace, soft deleted on 14 October 2022.Recreated (permissible), hard deleted on 21 October 2022.Recreated in draftspace (permissible), brought to MfD (for no good reason); no consensus on 15 November 2022.On or around 22 March 2023, recreated in mainspace again via move from draft, making it G4 eligible; the article and the draftspace redirect were deleted. The draft was not deleted because there was a problem with the draft as a draft, it was deleted under G8 after having been turned into a redirect, to a subsequently deleted page. This is only when thigs start being potentially tendentious on the part of the creator. It's plausible that the creator believed that they have improved the page to the point where editors would no longer want to delete it. It isn't reasonable to be intolerant of this error.The creator probably understood their miscalculation, which led to there being neither article nor draft, and did not recreate in mainspace for the third time. It's plausible that they figured that the article is a no no, but that they can still work on the draft, because it's not the draft that is the problem (which would be true, as long as they don't keep tendentiously resubmitting it as it is being declined). So they recreated the draft on 31 March 2022, (permissible) and IMMEDIATELY submitted it (stupid; second sign of tendentiousness).So this is a draft that had once been deleted on a technicality (G8), and was once declined. From all of this I conclude that there is not enough evidence of tendentious resubmission. The creator is free to keep working on the draft. If it starts to be actually tendentiously resubmitted, that's when blocking the creator would start being helpful. It's too early to tell. Did I get any facts wrong? —Alalch E. 13:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Two corrections:
 * The second discussion (21 Oct 2022) resulted in consensus to delete. There was no advice or suggestion that the article could be incubated in draftspace, thus the subsequent recreation in draftspace was counter to the discussion's consensus, and was G4 eligible. Of course speedy deletion is not compulsory (maybe excepting G10 and G12), but drafts are eligible for G4 speedy deletion if they're recreations of articles deleted in a deletion discussion, which this was and still is.
 * The draft was not G8-deleted: when the draft was moved to article space (by the creator, who does not have pagemover rights) a redirect was left behind, and when the article was subsequently G4-deleted the left-over redirect was G8-deleted by a script that takes care of orphaned redirects when we delete things. The deletion log is confusing for that situation.
 * The other missing point is that WP:NDRAFT calls for deletion of drafts which are (1) tendentiously resubmitted without approval, especially after deletion of a corresponding article; and (2) which are only edited superficially to reset the clock on G13 deletion (see WP:NDRAFT). This draft meets both of those points. The text in each draft is identical: the only differences have been that a "political career" section has appeared in different positions within the article/draft but always with the same text within the section (in the current recreation it has been omitted instead), and in one of the deleted versions they added one new reference to a section which didn't support any new information in the section, which was otherwise unchanged. The current draft also omits the "personal life" section which I removed because it's unsourced info about non-notable living persons, but it had appeared in the same spot and with the same text in each of the recreations. Other than these superficial changes, the creator has not changed the article text at all. In the history of the second deleted article you can see that after the no-consensus MfD they left the draft for about five months (they were consistently active on the site in that time), then added that one reference and moved the draft to article space without submitting to AfC. As for tendentiousness vs. misunderstanding: there is another article in the creator's history, Max Balter, which they created in mainspace on 22 Jan and was moved to Draft:Max Balter. They never touched that draft again but instead created Maxim Balter on 24 Jan, again with the same content other than a couple of trimmed sections, and with a COI/UPE notice removed. That was also moved to Draft:Maxim Balter not long after, and the only edit the creator has made to it since then has been to submit it entirely unchanged to AfC, where it's now pending review.
 * -- Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's helpful, and I am switching to delete. G4 would not have applied if the draft created after the AfD was not a sufficiently identical copy /also, deletion from an AfD shouldn't really lead to G4 of a draft in absence of evidence that the draft was created in an attempt to circumvent policy, and back then there was not such evidence/. But, yeah, I understand now that during this whole time, no meaningful intent has been demonstrated on the part of the creator to actually improve the content or demonstrate notability in a constructive way. Tndentious overall activity relating to this topic; the parallel example provides context for this conclusion. —Alalch E. 15:55, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. IMHO, the nominator stated enough valid arguments for this to be deleted. —  Sundostund  mppria  (talk / contribs) 06:02, 8 April 2023 (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.