Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Sar faraz harfi

 __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. Ə XPLICIT 02:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Sar faraz harfi

 * – (View MfD)

Attempted creation of a salted article at Sar Faraz Harfi / Draft:Sar Faraz Harfi. Is this person notable or not? Seems to refer only to his own website. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 15:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It’s regrettable that the deletion from mainspace rests only on CSDs A7 and G11, no AfD. Draftspace is allowed following A7 and G11, and only AfD judges notability, MfD doesn’t. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep It is a perfectly appropriate use of draft space to attempt, to create a draft on a SALTed topic of sufficiently high quality to convince DRV or an admin to remove the salting. Indeed this is normally the recommended response to a SALTing, if an editor wants to pursue the topic: "Show us a neutral and well-sourced draft." Often the editor does not manage this feat, but attempting it is no reason to delete the draft. Also, notability is explicitly not on the table for an MfD decision. Leave that for an AfC reveiw, possibly followed by an AfD. No valid reason to delete has been provided. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * changed to speedy keep, see below. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I've already declined the draft and redirected its duplicate submission at Draft:Sar faraz khan for not referencing any external sources. I can't tell if it's been recreated by a sock though or what got it salted in the first place. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 01:18, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * articles by this name (I haven't checked how similar to the draft) were speedy deleted several times, three tiems for for A7 (No claim of significance), two o9f whi9ch also cite G11 (blatant promotion), amnd once for G5 (created by a sock of a blocked user). It was salted for having been repeatedly recreated. Along the way, one version (*not the msot recent) was moved to draft, but I think the current version was created directly in draftspace. As it stands this is certainly not ready to be a-proved, not even close. But I don't see any reaso0n to delete it from draft space. Let the creator and anyone else interested try to shape this into an  acceptable article. It might be possible, although I wouldn't bet on it. I see no indication that the creator of the current draft,, i8s a sock of anyone, and until there is an SPI I wouldn't worry about that. Why do you think this should be deleted? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't see any news articles on Harfi when I do searches, only to his linkedin and crafted websites. I see some listings for Khan but they are for the Sarfaraz Khan (cricketer)  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 20:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sarfaraz Khan (disambiguation) points to three people with that name. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 20:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * None of which, is a reason for deletion. It does suggest that it is less likely that anyone will be able to demonstrate notability for Sar faraz harfi, but that isn't a reason to delete a draft. Editors may attempt to demonstrate notability in any way that they can. It is possible that soemoen will find and cite offline sources, or ones that are valid but which your search did not turn up. Not highly likely IMO, but possible. I still don't see why you want this deleted. You declined the draft. That is fine, I would have done the same. Why not just let it sit until it is resubmitted, if it is? If it is, a reviewer can check for any added sources and see ifm they help. Until then, why bother with it? Let the editor try to source it, if s/he can. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , again, it's mainly to see if this is triggering any history of socks or tendentious editing / advertising that warranted the A7 / G11. If the folks who called for it to be salted in the first place are okay with a developing draft then I'll pull it. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 21:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * A7 and G11 both depend on the content of the current article or draft, not on history. (well if the history contains an acceptable version, one should revert instead of deleting.) Even if others were socking on this topic, as long as the current editor is not a sock of a blocked or banned user, it doesn't matter. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Pinging, , , , admins who were involved in the previous A7 / G11's.  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 21:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep No valid reason for deletion even suggested. No reason for an MfD here. Please close promptly. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * , if the result is keep then the Draft should be unsalted. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 22:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep draft is a good place for it to ruminate Lightburst (talk) 04:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - This appears to be an attempt to game the naming of a salted title. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:24, 22 July 2020 (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.