Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Axon Partners

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. $Salvio giuliano$ 19:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Axon Partners[edit]

Multiple rejections with no signs of improvements, no in-depth coverage, previous undisclosed payment/COI, and generally not satisfying GNG. AmshitBalcon (talk) 17:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Technical note: AmshitBalcon, I fixed your defective MfD. Next time, please follow the instructions at WP:MFDHOWTO. —Alalch E. 17:47, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. AmshitBalcon (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The lack of in-depth coverage and failure to satisfy GNG are not considered at MFD as such. The problem is a combination of paid editing and being the work of non-good-standing editors. This draft has been submitted and declined three times; the record of the first decline was stripped by the submitter. The only edits have either been by reviewers, or by the now-blocked submitter, or by IP addresses who are probably the now-blocked submitter. This draft is wasting the time of the reviewers by being a plaything for bad-faith editors. The title should not be salted, and, if a neutral editor thinks that the company is notable, they can start over. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - We normally don't delete drafts that have been declined three times. We normally reserve that dishonor for drafts that have been submitted six or eight times. But those are normally drafts that have been submitted by clueless good-faith editors who may learn or may listen. This draft does not have clueless good-faith editors, but bad-faith editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I've restored the oldest decline. —Alalch E. 18:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not salt per Robert McClenon. —Alalch E. 19:01, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very poor nomination. AfC REJECT should not be confused with DECLINE. The draft has not been rejected. WP:UPE and other WP:COI is NOT a reason to delete their product, but is a reason to explain, warn and block the account. Deleting their product actually makes it easier for the UPE editor to learn to deceive us better, because each time they get a clean restart, with no records of their pattern. For this reason alone, the draft should be kept. Obviously not satisfying the GNG, or it would be mainspaced. Not satisfying the GNG is not a reason to delete from draftspace. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the logs, along with the discussion here, can keep us from being deceived by UPE editor when the draft is removed. AmshitBalcon (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At no point in time has this user's (or group of users' [less likely]) activity been effectively deceptive to the extent that we would need to worry about being deceived; edit after edit, it has consistently presented a conspicuous pattern of COI editing – so if, after deletion, this activity continues (but maybe it won't), it will have been the same type of typical, conspicuous, activity, and therefore we can stay pretty relaxed about it. This is a company profile intended to increase the company's visibility; it's almost impossible to recreate this draft and have it be anything other than that. Deleting is staying relaxed – saving a little bit of reviewers' time (potentially), and not worrying about the future that much. —Alalch E. 16:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Robert McClenon. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 23:18, 13 March 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.