Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Suiteness (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) 21:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Suiteness[edit]

Draft:Suiteness (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Declined 8 times now. Time to make a decision to delete this page. There are a variety of refs here and it is not promotionally written. Legacypac (talk) 06:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, speedy keep WP:SK#1, no reason offered for deletion. Legacypac has no authority to make these artificial deadlines. Leaning mainspace with criticism of the several rejecting reviewers, I think the first three references sufficiently attest to notability and that this is sufficient for mainspace. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
After 8 declines I'm not going to mainspace it unless it passes a deletion discussion. Legacypac (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you prepared to defend it at AfD? You have been blocked for doing this sort of thing, and banned from unilaterally mainspacing for this sort of thing. I fault you for insisting the community adhere to your timetable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No one is making any editor here evaluate notability or vote but most of the regulars here are experienced AfC reviewers, Admins, and other editors that regularly evaluate notability in other venues like AfD. We don't lose that ability by clicking into MfD. I came here directly from evaluating notabilty on drafts. I'm not familiar with WP:N/N perhaps because it is archived. Legacypac (talk) 02:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NMFD. You were the only one. Bringing notability here is disruption. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What artificial deadline? I see no artificial deadline. I see a common sense argument that if a draft is declined 3 or 8 times it is reasonable to make a decision as to whether to delete it. I do see that the author is a single-purpose account who has edited only this draft, and that it was taken to MFD once and kept, which does not mean that it should be kept now or that it should be deleted now. I have asked at the conflict of interest noticeboard. If a neutral editor, and User:SmokeyJoe is a neutral editor, wants to move this into mainspace, they can defend it or let it go to AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Baffled Question - SmokeyJoe says that a proper evaluation is too much work. What does that mean? A proper evaluation of what, where? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. of course no one ed. has the authority to set the deadlines for material like this, which is why we do it by consensus at MfD. There is no gain from keeping hopeless drafts, but despite the work involved, experience has shown a group discussion is necessary for each of them . We have to go by our judgment based on experience here abotu whether something is hopeless. DGG ( talk ) 06:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that I don't agree that it is hopeless. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since I didn't already !vote. The subject company isn't hopeless, but the current draft is hopeless with a single-purpose account pushing to promote it. Notability isn't the only issue. Neutrality also is, and sometimes deletion is the most effective weapon that we have against undisclosed paid editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - to me it's an ad. KJP1 (talk) 08:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Author of the article here. Thank you for giving me a chance to defend the article. I had replied to an earlier review about conflict of interest and it was cleared. I am not a paid editor. Agree that as an inexperienced contributor, the first 1-2 drafts were written poorly and sounded promotional. Since then I have sincerely stuck to comments from reviewers, asked for feedback on articles for creation helpdesk and removed all instances of promotional language and included as many references as I could to show notability. The article has been declined several times on account of notability and I believed that with references in unbiased articles on the WSJ, The NY Times, and similar leading publications, this would be resolved. The bombardment of references was a result of this. I'm happy to remove them but it would really help to understand why notability is still an issue here. Or what exactly are reviewers looking for that can solve this? Thank you for your time! Dmulan123 (talk) 15:25, 22 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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:Suiteness_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1074081013"