- Draft:Vascon Engineers (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Altered draft (not the original article) seems suitable to pass AfC pending a *significant* Paid COI discussion and thus needs unsalting. The article itself only seems to be significantly promo by existing (similar to most company articles). It has some good sources and I believe it would be beneficial. However there is a slightly confusing area about the user and them potentially being blocked. The Draft Creating IP isn't blocked. However they created the talk page to declare a paid COI. Another user notifies them they should create an account, and a Second IP responds in line with being the same person. That IP is later blocked and then receives a year ban for block evasion.
Now it seems reasonable that they are the same users (they are clearly in a fairly close IP block) but I can't actually confirm it. The non-blocked IP did some Paid COI notification but didn't do the whole process.
One other user made an appreciable content contribution.
There was a short discussion at AfC Talk on the topic that gave mixed views about whether the user's (potential?) status meant automatic refusal of the draft. The Admin (notified) was against unsalting here without a DRV.
I believe WP:NCORP is satisfied and that any promo presence is minimal enough not to prohibit article creation. It is only this creator COI issue that seems a major potential issue.
I apologise for DRV formatting errors - I've not linked to the AfD etc because I'm not challenging the prior decisions. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a link there. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted the text of this version is essentially identical to the contents of the previously deleted version in mainspace (I appreciate that the OP isn't an admin and can't see this), and it's written by someone who is almost certainly a block-evading sock of the previous creator. If moved to mainspace it would qualify for speedy deletion under G5. We shouldn't be bending over backwards to make things easier for block-evading sockmasters with COIs. Hut 8.5 18:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep salted. As Hut points out, the current draft (including the references) is virtually identical to the draft which was WP:G11'd and upheld in an previous review. The similarity is close enough that a WP:G4 deletion of the draft would be justified. Suggest the draft be deleted and salted as well. The previous DRV close said, this promo ring has already sucked away too much volunteer time. Surely that is even more true now. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been thinking more about this. There's two basic schools of thought. One is that we should WP:DENY paid spammers the realization of their goals. The other is that, as Legacypac points out at the AfC chat, that it's the article, not the author, that's important. I don't agree 100% with either side, but I'm much closer to the DENY end of the spectrum. Be that as it may, let's look at the article, and Legacypac's WP:LISTED argument. LISTED says, Consensus has been that notability is not automatic, so I looked at the references. What I'm mostly seeing is routine business announcements of acquisitions, stock price movements, customer contract signings, quarterly earnings. These all fall into WP:NCORP's Examples of trivial coverage cases. So, even if we ignore the COI, and any promotional language, I still don't think this meets NCORP. My standard offer applies; point out the two or three but no more best sources, and I'll take a closer look at them. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Vascon/Pricol joint venture, SEBI and insider trading, Residential project's effect on shares. In my view there are probably 5 reasonable or good sources, obviously with some overlap in provider Nosebagbear (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The Business Standard is the easiest to evaluate. It's routine coverage of a stock price move. It even says, This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.
- The Hindu is also routine coverage. There was an announcement that the company was being investigated, and this is little more than boilerplate coverage of that, with some quotes from the company's press release (the same quotes were picked up my many other papers).
- Business Line is again just routine coverage of an announcement of a joint real estate investment.
- All of these fall under the Examples of trivial coverage clause of WP:NCORP. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Deleted I can only see the sources provided, but they don't seem to be good enough to undelete/unsalt this article. SportingFlyer talk 23:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- In some sense you can dismiss almost all coverage as routine around companies, barring some crazy scandal. The issue is that public companies generate regular sustained coverage. With usually thousands or hundreds od thousands of direct shareholders and many more indirect shareholders via pension and mutual funds, there are many people interested in public co's and there is a public interest served by providing coverage of public companies. Public co's tend to have many employees and other stakeholders as well. Getting a company listed in a significant undertaking involving a lot of regulatory filings. Directors and officers have to report insider trading and on it goes. This is why pretty much ever Listed company is notable. If we just allow a page normal editors will keep it in check and we don't have to fight the creation. I just had another public company I approved and another editor we t off accusing the creator of undisclosed COI and paid editing on a page that was just factual and well referenced. Turns out the poor new editor worked for a unrelated landscaping company, was not being paid and decided to write up this public company that is based in his hometown where they are understandably famous. So yes if the topic is notable and the promo fixible letting the page through is the right move. Legacypac (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- For those wondering how this draft compares to the version we just all-but-unanimously endorsed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 April 26, I've compared the first revision of the draft to the last nonblank revision of the deleted mainspace article. They're identical, except for changes to the infobox (removal of File:Vascon Logo.png, addition of ISIN, incorrectly linking R. Vasudevan instead of R. Vasudevan (entrepreneur), and shortening the links to CEO, CFO, and MD in key_people), unfixing some typos in the first paragraph, changing one sentence from "The company develops residential, commercial, malls and hotel projects in different parts of India, including Pune, Nashik, Hyderabad, Chennai, Mumbai and Coimbatore, and other Indian cities." to "The company is active in multiple sectors including IT Parks, Malls & Multiplexes, Residential, Industrial, Hospitality and Community Welfare Centers.", removing the 25em parameter from {{Reflist}}, and removing {{India-company-stub}}. Subsequent changes aren't much more substantial. —Cryptic 00:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep salted. If I have understood correctly, the request is to unsalt the page in order to allow the new draft to be moved to the title, not to undelete the originally posted article. The page has been twice deleted and failed a previous DRV. The current draft is virtually identical to the last deleted article. The draft author has made no attempt whatsoever to address the concerns that led to deletion. On the contrary, the draft is a step backwards because it has lost the typo fixes and copyedits done by independent editors. There is therefore no merit whatsoever in posting this draft. SpinningSpark 20:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- PCOI Clarification given then - just wanted to note that clarification of PCOI means I'm happy to withdraw (huge amount more on sources which I am unsure with, but given multiple grounds that disagreement seems a little moot). There was a desalt !vote, so I won't just remove it - additionally because I've no idea whether eds can withdraw even unianimous DRVs like AfDs can be, so this is just a personal !vote change Nosebagbear (talk) 09:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
|
