Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:DECT-2020

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:DECT-2020

This draft was resubmitted 4 times without much or any improvement, it was probably created via

WP:UPE and it reads like an advert. Seawolf35 (talk - email) 15:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

The page tries to describe a new technology, where it is hard to get reliable second sources. There is links to the standards themselves, to a few studies on the standard and then some magazine articles telling that the standard has come out. But there is a chicken-egg problem for second hand sources, when the technology is new. Flint314 (talk) 16:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the arguments at
talk) 22:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Keep - It isn't necessary to delete a draft immediately after it is rejected. Rejection was developed to obviate the need to delete useless drafts. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not resubmitted after a REJECT. No allegation of tendentious resubmissions. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a risk that non-productive resubmissions could continue after this MfD concludes and it could be that the resubmissions paused only because of the MfD. Rejection was done on the same day as the starting of this MfD. The MfD obviously alerted the creator, and interrupted their pattern (the creator is aware of this discussion and has commented here). But the pattern could continue. Should the pattern continue, the creator should be blocked.—Alalch E. 09:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some time needed to have passed after rejecting to allow us to see if that had any effect on the creator. It's possible that the creator would not have submitted after that. This MfD would not have been needed in that case. Rejecting and starting the MfD on the same day negates the purpose of rejecting. —Alalch E. 09:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: per above. Only MfD if tenaciously resubmitted after rejection. Clyde _{[trout needed]} 15:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per keep comments above. Bduke (talk) 00:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - MfD for drafts should really only be used if absolutely required, and I don't see that it's required. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 16:02, 14 November 2023 (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.