Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Design Visionaries

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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. Given that no rationale has been advanced for keeping this so far. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 02:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Design Visionaries


Pure self promotion of a run of the mill WP:MILL design firm. User:Mechaneng does not need to waste our time or theirs on this. Legacypac (talk) 23:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - Author is another promotional single-purpose account. No need to ask about paid editing.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This nomination is wasting more time that simply rejecting the draft would. The draft still has a "submit", "Please note that if the issues are not fixed, the draft will be rejected again."  BUT, the draft has never been "rejected".  The templates need fixing.  There needs to be a reject option for the reviewer.  Until then, bringing every submission requiring rejection where the author resubmits due to the inappropriate saccharine advice to resubmit to MfD is to waste someone's time.  Replace the contents with NSFW and keep asking for improvement of the AfC code.  There is no valid reason for deletion.  It is a run of the mill WP:NMFD fail of a nomination.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * its a declined G11. That's why I brought it. Legacypac (talk) 05:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I wish you would mention previous G11 tagging and de-tagging. I don't always have time to look.  Declined G11s are to be always welcomed. I would have supported the G11 deletion of the tagged version, the external links Facebook, Twitter & LinkedIn scream G11.  The company website and USTEC are not as bad, not unreliable promotion, just promotion.  Now that I look at the four references, they are all non-independent promotion and therefore completely unacceptable as sources for starting the draft, and it should be WP:CSD-ed (except that someone de-tagged).  At best, WP:TNT, the current version must not be used, even if an acceptable article can be written.  An acceptable article must be based on independent reliable sources.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC) Delete.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. I declined this (as the edit summary states "Declining speedy; new draft, creator deserves chance to improve") purely because it was a fresh draft, minutes old, and not submitted for review, that was G11'd immediately, rather than after a delay to allow the creator to fix the problems. I agree the current version is unacceptable (and indeed reviewed it as such out of process) but there isn't, as far as I'm aware, a requirement for drafts to be immediately acceptable in mainspace (otherwise why bother with drafts at all? "Drafts are meant to be works in progress, and most will not meet Wikipedia's standards for quality at first."). "The general section of the criteria for speedy deletion may be applied to drafts. Drafts that are ... blatant advertising or promotion will be speedily deleted." It didn't seem to me to be sufficiently blatant to merit immediate removal. I have no objection to deleting it via discussion, given that the creator was suitably notified and can argue their case here, should they desire. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes I tagged for immediate speedy as it is spam on a WP:MILL business from an evident WP:COI editor. No need to waste time on this. Legacypac (talk) 17:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 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.