Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:SurrealDB

 __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. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 06:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Draft:SurrealDB

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

Promotional article edited primarily by an account which has just been indeffed for writing promotional articles and tendentious editing. TarnishedPathtalk 05:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete Clearly promotional and despite the flurry of sources, few of them are reliable, and even fewer demonstrate anything beyond the fact that the software exists. The article itself doesn't even know if it's trying to source the notability of the company or its software.
 * CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete - A thorough AfD found this was not notable for the article and despite the creator of the article rewriting the source analysis in his favour on the talk page, it remains the case that no sources have been presented that support notability. This, aside from all the other good reasons that this is not suitable for article space, is grounds for deletion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete - I agree with the above. Bduke (talk) 06:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and above comments. The attempted restoration of promotional content under "please stop vandalising" or other such similar statements means they just want to promote the software without actually writing it properly. Procyon117 (talk) 06:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete The article was deleted recently through AFD process then recreated and deleted again, now restored to the draft space at author's request, despite going through this convoluted mess of a process, this article has barely improved and is still highly promotional. I'm open to this article being salted to prevent future recreations of the same. Ratnahastin  (talk) 07:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is necessary per WP:NDRAFT. The salting in mainspace prevents any premature moves, so unless this is resubmitted without substantial improvement, disruption is minimal. On the other hand, if the primary contributor of this draft is unblocked, I would strongly advise against any behaviour that could be seen as asserting ownership over content. A userspace draft might be a a better option for control, though ultimately collaboration is a must unless drafting the article off-wiki Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Ignore per WP:NDRAFT and leave for WP:G13. Not of the above is a reason for deletion, and some, especially notability, and criticism of quality of sourcing, are reasons for something to be in draftspace, not deleted from it. MfD is not for curating bad drafts, or disappearing the work of recently blocked users. And, the user might be unblocked with a good appeal. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * NDRAFT is an essay, not policy. It makes a good point: a non notable draft harms no one. Except this draft had been sent to AfC before the creator was blocked. On that basis it was deemed, by the creator, to be ready for mainspace. It is not and it cannot be if it remains (as recently found at AfD) to be non notable. There is no harm in the draft laying around, but it would be a waste of time to get someone review it for AfC and a much bigger waste if it inadvertently got accepted and we had to go through the deletion process again. Better to just be rid of it in ths case. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * None of that is a reason for deletion from draftspace. The nomination is busywork. User:TarnishedPath reverted the AfC submission, so the risk of waste of time reviewing is already dealt with. If a bad draft gets inadvertently accepted, that’s a reason to review reviewer competence, not a reason to send all bad drafts to MfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Your opinion. But we are here now. There is no good reason to keep this twice deleted article, even in draft, now that the drafter is indefed. Your argument may be a good one not to bother nominating it in the first place, but as an MfD has to be closed, closing this as delete is no more work than closing it as a keep and allowing it to expire. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep: There is no issue which needs to be rectified through MfD deletion. It's not that overly promotional for draftspace purposes (though certainly inappropriate for mainspace, it is not in range of a G11), and does not seem to have been tendentiously resubmitted. Curbon7 (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Currently the delete !votes are the MfD equivalent as someone going to AfD and saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Just because the draft is frankly shit is not a justifiable reason for early deletion. I would also note that multiple different editors have significantly contributed to this article in the past few days beyond just the blocked creator,so that argument does not land either. Curbon7 (talk) 23:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * My argument was that it is not notable, which is the AfD equivalent of it is not notable. My only contribution to the article was to ask about notability and evaluate the new sources added since it was last (recently) deleted at AfD. My evaluation is what leads me to the conclusion that it remains not notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Good thing this is MfD, where a draft's notability notably does not matter. Curbon7 (talk) 21:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As discussed above, NDRAFT is an essay, not policy. The policy is at WP:MFD and that page directs us to be familiar with the deletion policy. Draft space is for incubating articles, certainly, and it would be inappropriate to try to enforce the same standards on drafts as we do on mainspace, but notability is still relevant. Here is an article that has already been found to be not notable, and it continues to be not notable despite a disingenuous rewriting of a source analysis table by the blocked creator. The fact that it is not notable for an article is very relevant. Against that, we can say that it might have been better to let the article be auto-deleted as it should never get through AfC, but I have four things to say about that:
 * The article was sent to AfC, so cancelling the AfC and nominating the article was a good faith effort to avoid some mix up where this accidentally gets created and has to go through AfD all over again. Yes, that shouldn't happen. But it could happen.
 * Now that the article is at MfD, and we are all spending effort on discussing it again, the line of least resistance is to just let it go again and not keep it just so that it can be auto deleted again.
 * There was a level of tendentiousness to this. The indeffed editor had the draft restored, rewrote the source analysis in his favour, and tendentiously submitted to AfC without improvement despite a very recent and very clear consensus to delete
 * Any argument that we should keep it so as to let it be auto deleted through lack of care, now that the editor has been blocked, is an implicit recognition that we don't keep drafts that are doing no harm. Draft space is not a permanent hosting solution for non notable stuff. That is why drafts get automatically deleted. So unless your argument is that this is, or could be, notable, you are just deferring the deletion. Again, notability is the issue. And that is part of the MfD policy.
 * Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, I strongly disagree with that analysis. I generally do not think MFD should be policing draftspace except exceptional circumstances, which I do not think this is one now that the creator (who is not the sole primary contributor) has been blocked. Also, while I certainly understand the argument of "it's here, let's just deal with it now", I feel that thinking tends to lead towards slippery slopes. Curbon7 (talk) 02:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Curbon7, it was submitted to AfC despite the obvious issues with notability. That the creator has tried to get it into mainspace multiple times after the original AfD would suggest to me that it was tendentiously submitted. I undid the AfC submission in order to not waste any reviewers time. Tarnished</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 09:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Curbon7 (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. Obvious promotion. WP:NDRAFT has a point but I see no reason to keep this sitting in draftspace. Saving drafts like this would probably need a WP:TNT anyways. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 23:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:AfC has standard processes. They serve for pages like these. MfD has a role, but this is not it. G13 was implemented for pages like these. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - The reasons given to delete this draft seem to have more to do with the conduct of the originator than with the draft or its history, but the originator has already been indefinitely blocked. No specific risk has been identified that is associated with this draft.  It will not be resubmitted by the blocked originator.  It will not be moved out of draft space or into article space by someone else, because, if I read the logs correctly, the draft is locked in place in draft space and the title is salted in article space.  So the only thing that can be done is that a bona fide editor can clean it up to try to make it into an acceptable draft.  For these reasons, the requests to delete it are an over-reaction, as if the existence of this draft is scary.  Maybe the locking and salting was itself an over-reaction, and the titles should have been left alone and this draft deleted instead, but we are here.  At this point this draft can be ignored. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak keep mainly on procedural grounds. G13 is the correct way to deal with these, not MfD. In fact, I can't see any reason to delete it. Yes it might not meet notability guidelines, yes it might need work, but it's not overly promotional, it's notability isn't clearly unfounded (it has had some discussion in reliable sources, just not enough to get it over the bar), and it'll get cleaned up soon enough. And who knows, it might gain notability in the next 6 months and be created. However, a draft being "not notable" should not be grounds for deletion from draft space, as that was the entire point of setting up draftspace in the first place. Mdann52 (talk) 13:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 *  Weak keep This subject isn't so clearly unnotable we should think about deleting it at MfD on those grounds. It hasn't been excessively submitted via AfC or other reasons to delete it. It can be deleted via G13 if no one works on it before then. Skynxnex (talk) 16:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC) 17:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete It is time to enforce the community's decision that we do not want this topic to be covered here, not allow it to be circumvented and waste people's time months down the road. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 17:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.