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. ✗plicit 12:32, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Wetelo[edit]

Draft:Wetelo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)​

I originally tagged it for g11 as unambiguous promo/advertisement, it was subsequently deleted by Athaenara, this was challenged by ToBeFree who restored the draft. As such I believe a deletion discussion should be done. I stil believe that it's g11 worthy as it was created solely to get the business on Wikipedia. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC) @Athaenara and ToBeFree:, pinging both of them. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The intention behind the creation is irrelevant for G11; the content is written neutrally. I don't see the point of nominating such drafts for speedy deletion; it is fine for this type of articles to reside in draftspace until proof of notability is provided or they're deleted per G13. A normal notability-based deletion discussion with WP:AFDBEFORE is also an option if the draft creator insists in having it, but there's currently neither a need for having this discussion nor for taking any administrative action. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping, Lavalizard101, I agree 100% that, regardless of how the content might be tweaked and/or massaged, it's a totally inappropriate Wikipedia entry and should be deleted. – Athaenara ✉ 10:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The wording of the article is not promotional, and declared paid contributions are allowed. The company might or might not be notable, but draft space is here to allow editors to work on that issue without the threat of immediate deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 14:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Whpq: Personally, I'm in favor of persistently and even predictably nipping this kind of thing in the bud, because that's the message spammers need to get. As Brad Patrick famously posted some years back, in September 2006,

"The volume of corporate vanity/vandalism which is showing up on Wikipedia is overwhelming.

"If we are to remain true to our encyclopedic mission, this kind of nonsense cannot be tolerated. We are losing the battle for encyclopedic content in favor of people intent on hijacking Wikipedia for their own memes. This scourge is a serious waste of time and energy.

"I am issuing a call to arms to the community to act in a much more draconian fashion in response to corporate self-editing and vanity page creation. This is simply out of hand, and we need your help."

– Athaenara ✉ 16:40, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I personally agree with you. I am not a fan of paid editing. Paid editing crap like this, and this are irksome. But the decision to keep or delete is based on the policies and guidelines that we have, and not the policies and guidelines I wish we had. Whpq (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've little doubt this is a non-notable company failing WP:NCORP and it has no encyclopaedic value, however the draft has only been around for less than 48 hours and has not been resubmitted tendentiously so WP:NMFD applies. The editor should be given time to establish notability, or the draft can wither on the vine per WP:G13. Lets not bung up MFD with drafts just because they're on non-notable subjects. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  (the relevant RfC is Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_58#RfC:_Does_WP:N_apply_to_drafts_in_userspace_or_draftspace.3F) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:58, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Gross WP:CORP failure. Even if notable, a draft that starts with the official website has started in the wrong direction, and needs deletion per WP:TNT. Starting a WP:CORP with zero independent secondary sources is to waste your time and others time. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per policy and RFC before. If problems aren't solved in some time, G13 would help. No prejudice against G11 if it turns "unambiguously promotional" or completely advertisement-like. On a personal belief, disclosed paid editing shouldn't be discouraged as it would only lead to undisclosed paid editing. Corporations and their representatives wouldn't be abolished with us making a policy change. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 08:20, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in draft space for now. It does seem vanishingly unlikely that this company would ever qualify under NCORP, however the writing style is not G11. We have a process that will take care of this in time - barring something exceptional, the page will never make it out of draft space and eventually end up a G13. No need to go nuclear about it and shoehorn a SD criterion now that doesn't actually apply. As a general point, yes it is a challenge to keep commercial spam out of wikipedia. We have a decent process for it, developed in part over the years in response to the lawlessness previous to it referred to in the Brad Patrick quote above. We can tweak the process and our rules/policies, but let's adhere to them. If we randomly overextend our application of them beyond their ambit, we also lose the moral authority to insist paid and other COI editors adhere to that process. Bottom line is wikipedia is unharmed by having this draft sit around for a while, its authors having the chance to demonstrate suitability for inclusion, even though we feel pretty darn strongly they aren't going to succeed. Martinp (talk) 13:40, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above, and also per WP:NMFD - which is not a Wikipedia policy, but neither is citing Brad Patrick, during a time when Wikipedia was still very much in its infancy. Yes, it's currently not fit to be a Wikipedia article. But 48 hours after it's been draftified you nominate it for deletion?... I... No. --🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - Needed declining or rejecting. Was declined. Will need rejecting if resubmitted. It is true that it has no independent references, and is also true that drafts are not deleted because of the lack of references. They may be deleted if resubmitted tendentiously with references. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: A weak keep though. I doubt that it will get past AfC any time soon. Gusfriend (talk) 07:28, 11 October 2022 (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.