Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Johnel

 __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:  speedy keep. The nominator withdrew and none of the participants have recommended anything other than keeping the draft. (non-admin closure) —Alalch E. 10:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Johnel

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;


 * The article Johnel was drafted as promo/COI User talk:Adambenji
 * A conflict of interest/paid editing discussion related to the article took place here User talk:Adambenji
 * AfC rejected the draft User talk:Adambenji
 * At some point it made its way to mainspace and it was nominated for speedy deletion User talk:Adambenji
 * Another submission to AfC which was rejected User talk:Adambenji
 * Another AfC rejection User talk:Adambenji
 * Another AfC rejection User talk:Adambenji
 * Fourth time is the charm, but the problems remain in the article, the reviewer may have been unaware of the history. User talk:Adambenji
 * See reviewer comments for additional information. I have edited the article.  // Timothy :: talk  03:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Looking at the sources I think they are all very brief promo pieces, nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV addressing the suject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  03:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment: Why draftify it instead of just leaving it in mainspace and AfDing it? MfD is not a venue for litigating notability. Curbon7 (talk) 06:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with Curbon7; this should have been taken to AfD instead. Toad ette  ( Merry Christmas, and a happy new year ) 07:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: For the benefit of other editors, this draft was reviewed and stayed on mainspace undisturbed since June 2023. I made a complaint about a sockpuppet vandalising this article to an administrator and the same admin deleted it by mistake because of my failure to explain the situation well. See the discussion here. The article was revived by the WP:DRAFTIFY process. Since then, I've been working on the draft and got help from Timtrent to improve it for acceptance to mainspace which was later accepted by ToadetteEdit. I know I'm a paid editor, fine. But the way this article has been dragged around from several spaces is not making sense. Now is at miscellany for deletion, for what reason? The editor that nominated it for deletion on draftspace is clearly not just fine with this article on mainspace. I don't know the reason though. But you can see that this stub has over 200 total edits made on it and here it is, considered for deletion on 'draftspace'. Adambenji (talk) 08:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. No reasons offered are reasons to delete from draftspace.   misuses the term “rejected”.  This was accepted once.  Per WP:DRAFTOBJECT, even the COI editor may insist on its return to mainspace, from where AfD may be used.  NB it is much easier to delete from mainspace than from draftspace.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * User:ToadetteEdit Accepted the draft on 26 Dec 2023. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: Because it is in Draft space I see no reason to delete it. Were it in Mainspace and at AfD I might take a different view because different criteria apply.  Concur that MfD is not a place to litigate notability. 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It was not very proper to draftify an accepted AfC submission (to contest mainspacing by redraftifying). An AfC reviewer accepting creates an a priori objection to redraftification. What should have been done is starting an AfD. There's no reason to delete this draft, therefore keep.—Alalch E. 12:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. We generally do not rush to delete drafts that aren't ready for mainspace, allowing draft space as a "safe space" to work on them (unless clearly abandoned). We do delete drafts that are tendentiously resubmitted. The history here seems complicated, and while there are promo concerns there are also genuine attempts to improve the sourcing and the article, and demonstrate notability. Taken together, this leads me to think there is no need to delete from draft space. In addition, en:wp struggles with developed-world bias and how to evaluate sources from elsewhere in the world well, and more generally how to cover subjects notable in some corners of our wonderful world but not hitting the big time globally. This leads me to prefer to "let things percolate and improve" rather than "blast with fire" whenever that can be done while preserving en:wp article space's integrity in these situations in particular. Martinp (talk) 14:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep - As the previous editors have explained more than once, the nominator made a good-faith error in nominating this draft for deletion. The proper action would have been either to move the article to draft space or to nominate it for deletion at AFD, rather than to move it to draft space and then nominate it for  MFD.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment TimothyBlue, it doesn't look like this draft will be deleted so you might consider withdrawing your nomination. As you can see, the process at MFD is quite different from AFD. A lot of content that would be frowned upon in main space is tolerated in draft space. Liz Read! Talk! 01:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn: Never nom'd a draft before, I thought this would go to AfD.  // Timothy :: talk  01:41, 4 January 2024 (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.