Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Dong Yen

 __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:  keep. ✗ plicit  14:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Dong Yen

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

Draft is an unsourced and biased, promotional landing page for this author's books, and the short biography section that does exist is presented in such a onesided and unsourced view that no portion of this draft is salvageable.

One draft contributor, VietDzu is adamant in retaining the promotional content of 50+ links to Amazon where one can buy the author's books despite repeatedly being told these external promotional links are not permitted content, and they have repeatedly reinstated these promotional links. VietDzu's argument for keeping them in the draft is "they've been there for months" stated here.

Outside of the promotional content concerns and the NPOV issues, I have not found any sources that talk about this subject in any reliable source context. All I have found are author bios from various book selling websites and Goodreads, and absolutely nothing from any news source. No author interviews, nothing.

Unless some WP:RS can be shown to exist and that would support anything stated in this draft, I do not see the point in keeping this draft going or giving this biased puff piece any more time in incubation. Zinnober9 (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - Needs rejecting if submitted. The author needed blocking, and has been blocked.  Either someone will clean it up, which is unlikely, or it will go away.  If sockpuppets try to improve it, report them to SPI.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it needs rejecting if submitted. I even disagree that it is reasonable to reject if submitted.  It does not meet criteria for rejection.   It should be merely declined. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is sourced, and has claims of significance, and the subject is plausibly notable. Whether it is notable is not a question to examine at MFD, and the purpose of draftspace is to host stuff like this. The draft has numerous severe problems, but none warrant deletion, and MfD is not a tool for curating draftspace. On concerns about promotional links, this is sufficiently covered by draftspace being NOINDEXed for search engines, and accordingly you can see in the pageviews history that no one was looking at them.  In contrast, this MfD has generated orders of magnitude more pageviews for it, see Streisand effect.  Ignore the draft until submitted, and when submitted, WP:AFC has good processes for dealing with it.  In time, there’ll be WP:G13, as per the intentions of the creation of the G13 process.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

See also User:Dinh Buong. --Achim55 (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I tagged the Userpage WP:U5. In userspace, this is driveby promotion by a noncontributor.  U5 does not cover draftspace.  Neither page meets WP:G11. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. The draftspace essay is a vessel for the draft author's original critique of some of the political commentator's commentary. While the external links are inappropriate, this is not a truly promotional draft.—Alalch E. 12:00, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - Nom reasons are inapplicable as this is draftspace and not mainspace. --⛵ WaltClipper - (talk)  19:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. CastJared (talk) 17:19, 4 May 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.