Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Lastee

 __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) 12:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Lastee


Delete per Articles for deletion/Lastee just three months ago. The creator (a paid editor apparently) moved this to mainspace right after I declined this as not notable. Another user moved it back to Draft, but mainspace rules apply to this page because the creator not only has submitted to AfC multiple times but moved it to mainspace which comes with AfD elegability. If the decision is to keep this as a Draft or arguments made that we can't evaluate notability at MfD I intend to return it to mainspace where the creator put it (reverse the draftification) and subject it to AfD. Legacypac (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Eligible under G11, unambiguous advertising – a paid editor is trying to place a paid advertisement in Wikipedia under the guise of an article, but Wikipedia does not tolerate promotion of any kind. Not that it's particularly germane here, but it seems to me that was quite correct to move this to draft, and that  was quite absolutely incorrect to move it back to mainspace. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The result of the AfD was "soft delete" subject to WP:REFUND, so that doesn't inform a deletion discussion now. No, "mainspace rules" do not apply to draft space in the way the nominator implies. The mere fact that the draft was written by a paid editor does not make it G11-eligible, so weak keep. VQuakr (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * My point is they moved the page to mainspace which comes with mainspace judgement. The kindness of another editor who returned it to draft should not mean we should say "oh well it's a draft" Legacypac (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess we'll need to agree to disagree on this one. Unless there is evidence of gaming, I don't find the draft's very brief foray into mainspace to be relevant. A paid editor cannot create an article; reversing the improper move was the correct response but it doesn't change the drafts acceptability or status as a draft. VQuakr (talk) 22:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , paid editors can, and often do, create articles; we don't even have a policy that forbids them from doing so, let alone any means of enforcing it. Oh, and if someone pays for a piece of promotional text to be written in order to publicise themself or their business or whatever, that piece of promotional text is called an "advertisement". We don't allow any advertisements here; they may be deleted under speedy deletion criterion G11. Why would you think this one is not eligible? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - In this case, I respectfully disagree with User:Domdeparis in the second move from draft space to article space. Once a questionable draft has already been draftified once, if it is again moved to article space, moving it back it is move-warring, and if it isn't ready for mainspace it should be nominated for deletion.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * i originally moved the article back to draft space because the article creator was an undeclared paid editor when they moved it into mainspace. Their behaviour was so clearly that of a paid editor and they had already declared being a paid editor for other articles that as per WP:DUCK I felt it was safe to assume that this original move was in contradiction with WP:PAID. They admitted their COI 4 days later. They then moved the draft article back into mainspace themselves by quoting a talk page conversation. This would have eventually been a legitimate move if someone had accepted the draft submission on that talk page. This was not the case so I moved it back because this was against WP:PAID. In the case of a volunteer user objecting to a move of their article to draft space I would not have moved it back as per WP:DRAFTIFY but this move was against policy. The alternative would have been to open an AN thread. Dom from Paris (talk) 05:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - First, I understand why you did what you did. Second, move-warring between article space and draft space strikes me as a problem, because it protects the page from deletion when it should be deleted.  Third, I would have supported an AN thread.  Fourth, I understand why you did what you did, but I personally think that there are times that a move from article space to draft space is used as a Get Out of Jail Free for an article that needs deletion.  Robert McClenon (talk) 07:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - We already know what happened with this one in mainspace the first time, although it was a soft delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * To be honest my take was actually the opposite of your concerns. I am far from sure that this article would have been deleted in an Afd nomination. I have seen much weaker articles be kept with no delete !votes whatsoever. My idea was to force this user to respect WP:PAID and to work on the article and remove the promotionaly toned langauge. The risk was that this paid user would have found a way of avoiding the obligation of submitting the article for review by playing on the "move-warring" aspect and trying his chance on an Afd which this article had every chance of surviving. There is some in-depth coverage and you only have to have a couple of inclusionists to get a no-consensus. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - The paid editor is being a nuisance in move-warring this promotional piece into article space. The alternative would be a block.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - article is more or less the same as the one that was deleted, and thus not likely to pass AFC (declined again on 3 June 2018). WP:NMUSIC is policy. We also have to considered the creator's history of disruptively attempting to force his paid creations into the mainspace, despite warning such as Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_129.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * FWIW, WP:NMUSIC is not policy - it is a guideline. VQuakr (talk) 15:05, 8 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.