Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Dcode

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. ✗plicit 06:25, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Dcode

Declined 5 times without improvement - no likelihood of notability DGG ( talk ) 07:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no reason to keep this. --Bduke (talk) 07:09, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable spam. --Yamla (talk) 11:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Do not WP:SALT. SALTing Draftspace is counterproductive. WP:BEANS. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:36, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I tend to prefer to see rejections prior to an mfd as those convey a clearer message to the submitter. I also understand that many afc reviewers don't draw a sharp distinction between the two, and many of those who engage in resubmission without substantial improvement aren't actually reading the reviewers comments anyway, so I can see the perspective that a requirement for rejections prior to an mfd is a touch bureaucratic. In any case tendentious resubmission without improvement just wastes the time of both reviewer and submitter alike and WP:DMFD allows deletion in these circumstances. I don't want to tie anyone's hands on the SALTing question since decisions made through consesnus discussions like mfd are harder to reverse, but with just one g11 deletion in the log along with this mfd, salting appears to be premature at this time. Regards, 78.140.196.174 (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This draft has been declined five times. Are you meaning some other sort of rejection? --Yamla (talk) 18:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Yamla: that is correct, drafts can be either declined or rejected. WP:AFCR has some of the basics, you can ask Robert McClenon for some additional nuance. Regards, 78.140.196.174 (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a quick followup, see the stronger verbiage at {{Rejectdraft}} compared to the decline messages. Regards, 78.140.196.174 (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks. I appreciate the link. --Yamla (talk) 18:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It could have been rejected on any of the submissions. Just because the reviewers chose to decline rather than reject doesn't mean that it wasn't spam, and it is spam. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.