Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:JOAN (room scheduler)

 __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. No consensus for deletion. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 14:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Draft:JOAN (room scheduler)


This has been resubmitted five times with no significant improvement. Obviously non-notable piece of software. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Close. Resubmissions can’t be criticised as long as the reviewers keep declining with the saccharine encouragement to improve and resubmit. They are following instructions at face value. Not obviously non-notable, and the question fails WP:NMFD. There is a problem.  Mfd is not the answer. The answer is to firmly “Reject” the draft. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - After each decline, I see the addition of more references. This appears to be a good faith effort to follow the instructions noted in the decline as noted by SmokeyJoe. -- Whpq (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete its spam. The refs are press release based or otherwise unreliable. User has been told clearly the refs are not good ones. I've tagged G11. We HAVE to have a way to get unsuitable drafts out of the system. MfD covers Drafts and is the appropriate venue to discuss deletion. Legacypac (talk) 15:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a spectrum of spam. These was more on the side of factual, reliably sourceable, not based on only unsuitable sources, and could have had a future merged into another topic.  Where was the user told about sources?  You really must stop with CSD overreach, it seriously weakens the argument that reviewers can be trusted to tag under broad criteria responsibly. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:24, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Bad speedy Factual in form. I will be asking to restore this. If restored, keep as per, and . DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree, and I also appealed on his talk page. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:24, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Good speedy. Yes the submitters are told about sources in declines and in the supplied links in the AfC template. This is run of the mill software. DES is an Admin so why ask to restore it - just put your reputaion on the line, restore and mainspace so someone can send it AfD. If you are not prepared to mainspace it don't vote to keep. Draftspace is a place to develop actual paes for mainspace not a holdimg pen of non-notable topics and spam. Legacypac (talk) 03:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. With two editors asserting a bad speedy, it is definitely worth a discussion and not thus speediable.  You should take more care with wikipolitics, your gross lack of caution with the letter of speedy criteria rightfully causes others to be loath to expand the speedy criteria. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:56, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I have undone the speedy after the discussion on RHaworth,'s talk page., I didn't simply undo the deletion because the relevant policy strongly advises discussion with the deleting admin first, to avoid any chance of a wheel-war. This is a case where I adhere to Process is important. I think it is also important in doing speedy deletions strictly by the letter of the criteria. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Still Keep s above (where it was not bolded). Factual in form, possibly sourcable to mainspace standards, although not there yet. May never be ready for mainspace, may be made so. It is said above that Why? A rejection need not take long if things are as bad as is claimed. And it is always posible that a valid article may be fashioned after multiple submissions. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Several Admins have concluded this is SPAM. The Keep voters don't want it in mainspace. Process wonkery for the sake of targeting me is not ok. Legacypac (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not correct to say that I at least, and i think the other editors who opined "keep", want it in mainspace, if and only if it is first improved to make it suitable for mainspace. I also want this draft to be given the chance for those improvements to be made. I also do not want this or any page to be deleted in ways not justified by the deletion policy. To say "if you want it kept you must think it is ready for mainspace" is a false conclusion. It ignores the fact that many drafts, including this one, are not bad enough to justify deletion, but are not yet ready for mainspace, and may never be. Still they might be made so, and no one can be sue which ones will. Legacypac says   as if that settled the matter. Others, admins and experienced editors, have concluded otherwise. When experienced editors honestly disagree on such a matter, it is not a clearcut issue, and "When in doubt don't delete" probably applies. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:09, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * you are not being targeted here, certainly not by me. But an agenda which you have espoused, that every draft must be quickly promoted to mainspace or equally quickly deleted, and any gut feeling that a draft is unlikely to be promoted is grounds to delete it, that agenda I for one strongly oppose. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:09, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Legacypac - I concur with User:DESiegel on this point. - You appear to have an agenda that I consider hazardous to the quality of article space, and it is article space that is outward-facing to the world. Maybe you would like to abolish draft space because it has crud in it, but draft space is one of Wikipedia's dustbins.  I think that I disagree with DES about what sorts of crud need deleting from draft space, but you seem to be on a tear to push everything out of draft space either into article space (and I think that questionable stuff can stay in draft) or down into a bit bucket.  In the absence of a guideline about deletion of drafts, I say to delete a draft if it will never make it into article space.  This one will probably not make it into article space (which is not the same thing).  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Meh. It's clearly spam, and wouldn't survive in the article space.  But aside from annoying AfC reviewers, it's pretty harmless, and will likely end up being killed off by G13.  -  F ASTILY   08:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yuck - Neutral - Some things should be left alone to die of old age. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

To several of you - don't put words in my mouth. Legacypac (talk) 09:08, 18 April 2018 (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.