Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:CardConnect (company)

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 . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:CardConnect (company)[edit]

Rejected thrice already, but the sources continue to be merely regurgitated press releases or patents. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This page demonstrates the failure of the drafters and draft reviewers to effectively communicate. The systemic problem is not addressed, but hidden, by these deletions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete typical attempt to get a non-notable company a wikipedia page by someone with an agenda to push. Legacypac (talk) 07:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It remains an advert. Not sure I get SmokeyJoe's point. To me, the systemic problem is not a communication failure but a disconnect between the author, who wants a promotional article on Wikipedia for marketing purposes, and those reviewers who don't. That's never going to be capable of resolution by discussion. KJP1 (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It’s not a fully baked analysis, but definitely there are multiple problems. I think we have a run of the mill SPA UNdisclosed Paid Editor who doesn’t understood Wikipedia. Run of the mill yes, these accounts, these people, are being churned out of a production mill. Note the WP:Reference bombing. They think more inline references increase the chance of acceptance. Who told them that?? Answer: The historical bad rejects incorrectly requesting more inline citations. NB. The drafters are sock/meat puppet accounts, many more accounts than people. On the first submission, even presubmission, the drafters should be more forcefully pointed to a IsThisNotable essay. After submission, the first review should forcefully reject it due to promotion and woefully ~~failing~~ not demonstrating passingWP:CORP. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SmokeyJoe - Absolutely agree that "polite" declines, which fail to make clear that the draft's completely unsuitable, can create an expectation that a little more effort will lead to a successful outcome. It's exactly for that reason that I've changed my approach, on the back of recent advice and after doing a thousand reviews which saw the Afc backlog bigger than when I started! Maybe closer cooperation between Afd/Mfd and Afc could help here? KJP1 (talk) 21:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KJP1. In these fragmented MfD discussions, I have been refining my assessment of AfC process failures. I think I am getting better at having reviewers say "agree" as opposed to feeling that I am just insulting the reviewers. I think I have here a decent handle on the problem, and am thinking on how to articulate workable solutions as opposed to re-describing the problems. I personally do not think that XfD - AfC co-operation is the way to go, because haveing every non-speediable bad draft sent individually to an XfD is unworkable. I have proposed an idea whereby any two NPR qualified reviewers in agreement may list any draft for speedy deletion. However, I think a better idea is for more forceful declines of hopeless (looking) drafts, for these declines to see the removal of suggestions to fix and resubmit, and for AfC to more pointedly point newcomers with new topics to essays such as User:Joe Decker/IsThisNotable, essays that are written in full awareness that AfC is attracting a lot of hopeless topics by authors motivated to promote. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SmokeyJoe - Agree again; some sort of structural solution is necessary. I've seen a number of suggestions while I've been participating: a three-submissions and you're out approach; no CORP submissions for organisations less than x-years old; joint reviewer actions; template changes. Wikipedia policy isn't my area, but I'm pretty sure continuing multiple declines and resubmissions, coupled with the daily influx of new, unsuitable drafts, won't see the backlog significantly reduced. And we'll all have less time than we should to spend on the more profitable activity of supporting new editors to take promising drafts through. KJP1 (talk) 06:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:KJP1, User:SmokeyJoe - I agree that part of the problem is that the standard declines are too polite and are meant to be encouraging. I would say that a culture outside AFC in which it is commonplace to dump on the reviewers contributes, and the scolding of the reviewers for not being sufficiently welcoming and helpful to the authors, as does the status of the guideline against biting the newcomers, which is treated as a dogma, something even more binding than a policy, resulting in a fear of being criticized for being "bitey". Speaking on behalf of the reviewers, now that perhaps it is recognized that new authors shouldn't always be worshiped, I will say that some more negative decline wordings should be added, as well as encouraging the reviewers to MFD a draft that is making no progress, or one whose subject is obviously hopeless. I will continue these comments at the Miscellany for Deletion talk page. In the past, the talk of "process failure" has too often just been a criticism of the reviewers. It needs to be also a criticism of the templates and a look at improved guidance. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Four declines in six months is enough. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2018 (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.