Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Famepublish

 __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. ✗ plicit  06:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Famepublish

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

Repeatedly tediously re-submitted with just PR/Primary sources - website itself is a PR mill with "articles" repeated 10+ times on the front page KylieTastic (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi I agree with you but that was theme problem, we have fixed it. re-submission should not be a problem, only re-submission enables to re-review, everyone has the rights to have a wikipedia page, please take a look on this page which dont have any primary source: Indian Talent Magazine. But I am providing more citations than Indian Talent Magazine. Mr. Pratap Singh - founder of FAME Publish was a notable politician and was a Member of Legislative Assembly, He started this magazine in 2012, since then it was online website, since 2020 magazine has started publishing monthly issues. PR just a medium to get visibility but there is no false information included in that PR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by  Pujabhargav  (talk • contribs) 23:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC) — Pujabhargav (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Oppose deletion in this case. Tendentious resubmission, yes, but DECLINE/REJECT reasons are inadequate. I read the draft topic as plausibly notable. The author has no experience at writing content, not that can be reviewed, which makes things hard. The draft is WP:Reference bombed, which makes review very hard. There are some ok looking sources, but they also read like promotion, and they may fail the WP:GNG on independence. I advise the author to get experience by improving existing content.  Advise them that WP:SPA accounts always attract suspicion. Do they have a WP:COI, a connection to the topic?  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, now that I see the explanation was given, and better understand the nature of the website. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - Where is it written that "everyone has the rights to have a wikipedia page"? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete but do not salt. Resubmission after one rejection is too much.  As SmokeyJoe says, may be notable, but this version of the draft will never make it into article space, and should be blown up and started over. Repeated submission after rejection is unacceptable.  Does User:SmokeyJoe have a different suggestion of how to deal with resubmission after rejection, or with this resubmission after rejection?  Robert McClenon (talk) 06:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * My view of the RfC linked from WP:DMFD, which is now broken (we need to look into that), is that after tendentious resubmission or resubmission after rejection, it may be escalated to MfD. At MfD, we review, and may delete if not notable.  Also, we can review the repeated declines or rejection, and here when I do so I disapprove of reviewers feedback.  I mean to do this cautiously, because he is a respected reviewer, and the draft topic is complicated to review, but, zero words of feedback is not enough. Maybe feedback was removed?  Still, I find the topic to be plausibly notable, and so am not agreeing to “delete”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I also remain extremely frustrated with WP:AfC in their persistent failure to advise newcomers to not WP:Reference bomb, that they will get a much better review by following the advice at WP:THREE. I’d fix it myself except AfC is so template heavy that very few people are capable of changing things.
 * And another suggestion is that IPs and non-autoconfirmed accounts should be be able to create drafts, and that newcomers should be advised to get experienced by editing existing articles before attempting new articles. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * the reason there is zero feedback on the reject is purely based on this being an attempt to legitimise yet another fake news site. Also remember that it is not just on the submissions that advice happens - I try to always answer all questions on my talk page to explain what is wrong and what could be done if possible (in this case User_talk:KylieTastic). I don't reject often, and very rarely come here but in this case this is just a pay to promote website that is contrary to the purpose of WP. I note that they have changed the front page so it no longer shows the same paid content over and over and in every category making it extremely obvious. However it looks like just a template change so things like the about us is default text/contact details (not real). Lastly, although this really is not the place for these discussions, I always used to add extra comments but found that it made virtually no difference and if submitters ignore the decline notice they ignore the comments, the decline/reject notices are supposed to give all required information. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 08:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * User:KylieTastic, thanks, I suspected I was not seeing the whole picture. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - The originator writes that "everyone has the rights to have a wikipedia page". Such an absurd claim gives me a negative outlook on everything else that the author says.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Contributors, I told "everyone has right to have Wikipedia" because Indian Talent Magazine got it without any independent source, they only given facebook links and blog post of their clients. Please dont take it negatively. You all have more experience than me, its my fault I created draft without proper knowledge. We dont publish paid articles, 25$ was just 1 time registration fee. You know running a magazine is not easy, afterall we dont show ad in our magazine inspite of google ads. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4053:2C81:3D96:48C4:1030:F083:2216 (talk) 15:21, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Everyone has a right to Wikipedia. That is, everyone has a right to view Wikipedia.  Many governments abridge that right, but it is a consequence of various human rights.  No one has a right to have a Wikipedia page.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said on my talk page response "other stuff exists argument almost never helps, and is much more likely to just point out other articles that need to be deleted". Indian Talent Magazine has already had junk removed and extra tags added. I get the feeling it's due a trip to AfD but I've had a bad day and have no energy for WP tonight. You can nominate yourself if you really care (see Articles for deletion). KylieTastic (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

KEEP:If one page Indian Talent Magazine can be up without independent sources then why another can't be with the same subject and same notability and same web traffic?. I have put RFD tag to Indian Talent Magazine, if you are not discriminating then please down that page too. I'm sad to see how innocent are targeted on worlds biggest portal, and how tricky people get their page live. You say PR used in citation, check Wikipedia is flooded with PR sources, if you cant see, I can list all those, but they are big companies then nobody target them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4053:e01:7682::de0a:9a10 (talk • contribs) 09:27, October 13, 2021 (UTC)
 * COMMENT: It has been observed and even I can prove that Wikipedia give priority to native English people, they rejects other countries articles for little mistakes. I have enclosed citation from big sites but still rejected. Our magazine has been interviewed of many bollywood stars, we dont work for coverage, we work to help individuals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4053:2D8F:D801:0:0:DECA:6705 (talk) 16:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - I'm not finding much of anything we can use in a Google search, and the sources provided are pretty much all useless either under WP:Reliable sources or WP:CORPDEPTH. This plus the tendentious resubmissions weighs in favour of deletion.
 * To the IP: thank you for bringing up another page that should probably be deleted; I'll make sure it gets AfD'd as well if I can't find any sources about it. (You also did not AfD it - you prodded it, which means it can be contested even after the fact.) The argument that Wikipedia is flooded in PR sources is one I see a lot from COI users and my response to this argument is: If you actually gave a shit about Wikipedia as more than just a billboard, you would have taken those sources to WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to open debate on them and possibly deprecate them, rather than just using them as a wedge issue to try and push your advertizement. "They are big companies" is also a very odd claim to make unless, again, you don't give a shit about Wikipedia as anything more than a potential PR outlet. Interviews are rarely if ever acceptable sources, and those that are generally have more substantial lede or footer sections (you know, the sections with actual journalism rather than just giving the subject a mic to boast-rap). And if you "don't work for coverage" then why are you trying to use Wikipedia for a purpose it was never designed for? Unless, of course, you don't actually give a shit about Wikipedia's mission and just care about its Google results. Get off your high horse; this is a rerun of every single bad argument I've heard from COI editors over the years and it's frankly disingenuous. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 19:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete The COI / undeclared paid editing around this article is really enough for the delete. I'm not seeing how this meets WP:NCORP and continues to be resubmitted again and again by editors with obvious COI's that aren't being declared.  Enough.  As a source, this should never be used on Wikipedia, see  and  - active solicitation of PR and puff pieces for companies.  While it's not blacklisted (yet...), consideration should be given.  Ravensfire  (talk) 18:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Also see Articles for deletion/Sunil Butolia and User talk:Sunilbutolia for some related pages to this promotional efforts around this article.  Ravensfire  (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2021 (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.