Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Domestic & General

 __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, salt. — xaosflux  Talk 17:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Domestic & General

 * – (View MfD)

No improvement since 7 December version. Article was attempted to be trimmed but then it was restored back and resubmitted a ridiculous number of times. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 00:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - The recent history of this draft shows that unregistered editors, probably the author or another employee, have repeatedly removed the COI template from the draft, but that it has been restored each time. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete and Extended-Confirmed Protect in draft and article space, so that only a neutral editor can write an article. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Possibly meets WP:CORP. It is WP:Reference bombed, which I detest, because it makes an assessment way more difficult that is reasonable. Has it been tendentiously resubmitted without substantial improvement? If yes, show diffs. If no, keep.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Diffs of the most recent submissions:
 * Oct 1 decline to Oct 18 decline: Added: CEO, sentence on IPO, Removed: 2 clauses on products.


 * To Nov 16 decline: Added: One source on the acquisition, one source on awards.


 * To Dec 7: Large diff including addition of refbombed "support charities", two cites for awards and additions about employees.


 * To Jan 3: Large diff. The most promotional sections (including the two added in the last diff) were deleted.


 * I think the trimmed version might be an OK base. The sections were restored twice, when the speedy was declined and by a recent changes patroller. IMO the best option here is to stubify by removing the most promotional language, as was done twice three times, not removing COI templates (like the latter two) . If the repeated submissions are too frequent, then deletion is probably the best, but it's only been submitted twice this year. On the other hand, while I think it can be cleaned up, I don't think the current article content is really that much value, and a WP:TNT of the history and most of the text would not be out of order. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I took a more detailed look at the first stubify and I think the writing is too confused and still somewhat promotional. A full stubify should take it further, and if the rest of the MfDers think there's no content worth saving then it should be deleted without the possibility of REFUND. No comment on whether the editors have behavioral issues that need to be addressed but if they do then they should be blocked if possible, and deletion isn't a substitute for that. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Alpha. That’s completely in line for my line of thinking for these sorts of new draft topics by newcomers. They completely do not have onboard good advice on how to write a new topic, AfC communication appears ineffective, and every round they seem to dig the article deeper into the same wrong direction. I reckon newcomers need to be told to improve existing content related to their new topic before starting a new orphan page on their new topic. Deletion may solve this Domestic & General problem, but does nothing about the underlying problem. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - This is a reply to User:SmokeyJoe's comments about "new draft topics by newcomers" and to User:Alpha3031's recommendation of using the trimmed version as an "OK base". I respectfully disagree that the author is entitled to be treated as a newcomer, or that the trimming was a good-faith effort to improve the draft.  The "trimming" by unregistered editors included a stripping of the conflict of interest and paid editing templates, which was not done in good faith.  The "newcomer" whom SmokeyJoe suggests needs to be given hand-holding in order to become a better editor of related content is not interested in becoming a better editor, only in getting an article about their company.  I disagree with any implication that purely promotional editors should be given any sort of mentorship, advice, or encouragement to become better editors.  Perhaps I have an entirely different idea of how Wikipedia should work with promotional editors than Alpha3031 and SmokeyJoe. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Continuation of Comment - SmokeyJoe says that deletion may solve the Domestic & General problem, but does nothing about the underlying problem. What does he mean by the underlying problem?  New editors, or promotional editors?  My own opinion is that the two problems do not overlap.  Robert McClenon (talk) 13:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * “given hand-holding in order to become a better editor”. No. I do not say this, I do not think this.  I expect newcomers to make their own way in mainspace editing.
 * Agree with the distinguishing of sockpuppet promoters from genuine newcomers. They look the same on casual inspection. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Pshorney Looked like a typical SPA newcomer sucked into AfC where he gave up.  I know genuine newcomers with the same edit history. Genuine newcomers being invited into AfC gives cover to promoting socks in AfC, inept ones anyway.
 * Newcomers not editing existing content attempting to improve it should not be mentored, they should be watched with suspicion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Same Editor, Rotating IP. As per my previous comments from a day or two ago I made on the page, I said I found the page here andwould come back to add references to the page and I did exactly that within 48 hrs. I'm not really invested so do what you want but I don't want there to be any confusion to think the edits were made by two different people. My thinking is any company that is 100+ years old, was previously a publicly listed stock with more customers than most small countries is probably notable. Do what you will but i gave it my 30 mins of time. Everyone seems to agree that regardless of that huge ridiculous page that they tried to publish that the company is notable. Again, I read Smokey's comment above and I gave it my 30 mins to develop a stub but I am certainly not getting involved in whatever seems to be happening here. 2601:989:4300:7EE4:6DAC:9D0C:A2AD:E569 (talk) 23:28, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt. If anybody believes that two IP editors just happened to find this draft and decided to work on it, they need their sock-meter fixed.  Dishonesty begats deletion.  -- RoySmith (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. I frankly couldn't care who has been editing this draft in the past, as I don't find that at all relevant to the content this discussion is about (and I'm actually quite disturbed by the tone of some of the above comments, if they're reflective of how the editors normally deal with new editors it's entirely unsurprising we have a retention problem). What I see is a draft about a notable company that is not ready for mainspace but equally not deserving of deletion - the current version is not exclusively (or even primarily) promotional, and is base an article suitable for the encyclopaedia can be built on. Thryduulf (talk) 12:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh and before anyone makes any comments about how I came to this discussion, I saw it listed at ANRFC and came here to close it but on reviewing the discussion I found that I actually had an opinion about it that wasn't reflected in the discussion so chose to express that rather than be a non-neutral closer. Thryduulf (talk) 12:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - as is apparent from its creators and the various rotating IPs editing this article, this draft has been created contrary to WP:NOTADVERTISING and in violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. This fact would be enough for me to personally support deletion, but I can understand that not all editors consider TOU violations to be valid reasons for deletion. Thus, I will also bring up WP:NCORP and will note that the draft in question does not cite an adequate amount of independent, in-depth, significant coverage to ensure the topic passes NCORP criteria. For example, the citing of routine/standard business announcements in the draft does not assuage my doubts, nor does the fact that D&G buyout in 2013 may preclude the company from receiving coverage in the future. The draft also (in my view) does not lodge a credible claim to encyclopedia significance, a requirement for all mainspace articles. I am also keeping in mind this MfD concerns a draft, not a mainspace article, and thus we are judging the draft as it is rather than the topic's potential notability as is the case with AfDs.--SamHolt6 (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You seem to have it backwards - articles are required to meet notability criteria now, drafts are simply required to have the potential to be - and this one appears to have that. We are also required to judge the content of the draft currently without being clouded by suspicions about the editor(s) who created it - I believe the proposal to make ToU violations a reason for deletion failed to achieve consensus of the community. Thryduulf (talk) 22:29, 13 May 2019 (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.