Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Generations of Hope

 __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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 05:19, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Generations of Hope


Probably undisclosed paid editor. Did not respond to query as to conflict of interest.

In the nominator's opinion, it is worth the drama of MFD to deal with undisclosed paid editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:47, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, fair nomination. Leaning “Keep (out of scope, no evidence of community consensus to delete)”. Yes, consistent with a UPE (Undisclosed Paid Editor), but, two things: (1) Many discussions to date in project space have failed to garner support that these things should be deleted. Accordingly, I proposed instead that they should be quarantined and blanked with a demand to the author that they declare interests or payments before the page may be unquarentined. Don’t delete, but allow every editor to review the content in the history, but don’t leave on a live page even in drafts space.  I think we can boldly start doing this. (2) This topic is not even a for-profit topic, unless I am mistaken, and so is far less offensive to Wikipedia than the vast majority of UPE product that is profit motivated promotionally motivated. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete non-profits can be promotional too. This is some kind of housing society wraped up in feel good language. Not even sure what to make of it and I'm a real estate developer with extensive non-profit board experience. Legacypac (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * . “some kind of housing society”? Oh God.  I got carried away researching, and followed up on a charity family pregnancy assist thing (http://www.gensofhope.com) with the same name.  A housing society, not even a housing assistance for the poor, that’s definite “for profit” in my book.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly what it is is still difficult to divine. I think this is not just bad article writing, it is also not-uncommon bad promotion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - I will note that fundraising by non-profits can be every bit as aggressive as selling by profit corporations. Non-profit status doesn't obtain a pass from neutral point of view.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - Is there an existing procedure or guideline for "quarantining", or is User:SmokeyJoe proposing something new, or is SmokeyJoe dumping on reviewers for not inventing a new approach? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I proposed it in a TOU UPE discussion somewhere, where there were clear sentiments against deletion per ToU violation. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * See my post at the end of Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_69. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete but not on UPS grounds, the editor seems trying to declare on their talk even if not fully and given the bureaucracy here I’m willing to cut a bit of slack. The grounds are on WP:NOTSPAM, which this fails. They are attempting to use the 5th most visited website in the world to let people know about themselves while controlling the style of writing and presentation of facts and spinning, while somehow making it look like an encyclopedia article. That’s native advertising, which was not as much a thing when our policies were written, but it is now. No one writes is 1960s promo adspeak anymore unless they are a bad PR person. This was written by a competent 2018 marketing professional, and we should at least do them the credit of recognizing their work for what it is: an attempt to promote the org written to make it look otherwise. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:43, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * In considering Legacypac's and TonyBallioni's comments, I agree with "Delete per WP:NOTPROMOTION". I'll repeat in passing that I think  is a WP:UPE throw away WP:SOCK of an experienced Wikipedian.  I wonder whether it is appropriate for Sockpuppet investigations.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per TBall and LPac. Not that it affects it being promotional, but I actually looked through the sources, which seem human interest mainly, with only the Mother Jones piece having any analysis, about it apparently being a touch controversial as some feel that the children shouldn't be taken from their parents. (community focused on providing a stable family life for foster children and those adopted out of foster care, and on giving those families a web of supportive neighbors. is what they are apparently, and they apparently give money for people to stay home and take care of the children..) Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, noting that the author has responded and explained himself and his COI. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:55, 26 April 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.