Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Government People Group

 __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: No consensus to delete. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Government People Group

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

WP:ARTSPAM created by subject's communications person. Sourced mostly to company and "brochure like". WP:G11 declined. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, fails WP:NORG, blatant advertising zero independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 15:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yet, the page is still in draft, so more than enough opportunity to turn up independent sources (it was newly formed so these may not be here yet). Also, there is essentially no advertising language in article, it has clearly been specifically adapted to prevent such language. All language is factual. Jack Parkinson Communications (talk) 09:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:NDRAFT Jack Parkinson Communications (talk) 09:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Yep, this is what I would call "not-overtly-promo promo". Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per my rationale for the declined speedy nomination. Style doesn't have to be overtly promotional if the content is. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's good that the creator declared their conflict of interest. This makes clear that they're here for one purpose. A topic block is appropriate. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I was puzzled by the decline rationale. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge into Cabinet Office, after a major trim. It was only formed in 2023, and it may be too soon for independent sources that establish its notability. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This is an interesting point. Although, like other notable CS groups, this group does deserve its own page and is informative of many very important CS business units within CS. As it is still in Draft, time should be allowed to find these sources. Jack Parkinson Communications (talk) 09:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NDRAFT. Normal CoI draft, can be turned to a stub/trimmed if really desired. Deletion not required. Some of the content could even be useful, per a comment above mine.—Alalch E. 22:32, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's in draft space. There's no rush. Fix it. Potentially useful topic.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:33, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep as comment just above. Let us see how it goes. Bduke (talk) 08:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. DraftSpace is where COI editing is supposed to be done.  Good G11 decline.  Bad starts can be safely left in draftspace indefinitely until G13. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep: Run of the mill WP:NDRAFT. Clyde  &#91;trout needed&#93; 18:17, 7 November 2023 (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.