Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Malao Film

 __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) 21:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Malao Film


Declined 5 times at AfC and still not close to meeting WP:CORPDEPTH Legacypac (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as tendentious resubmission. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 00:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep . No valid reason given to delete.  Accepting this request will do more harm than doing nothing, not that nothing is a good course of action.  WP:VAGUEWAVE-ing WP:NCORP is not a deletion reason.  Resubmissions are never a deletion reason when reviews replace the header with the saccharine encouragement to edit improve and resubmit with a giant blue button carrying the implicit message "you can ignore the fine text and just press this".  The AfC templates cause the authors to think that the "submit" button is the method for communication.  I note disapprovingly that the author has had their talk page choked with templating and not a single human message.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep vote struck because user voted !delete below. Revert this if in error. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - Is undisclosed paid editing a deletion reason? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:09, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * User:TonyBallioni thinks so, I believe, and I don't disagree with him. I supported UPE product being speediable, but the community responded with a clear "no" to that.  Given that result, I wanted to quarantine the stuff, but User:TonyBallioni said "no".  Is it a case-by-case deletion reason, I asked him, but he evaded the question and said, I think, that all UPE should be deleted as promotion.  Where's the guideline?  Even a hint in policy?  I note, as I often do, that Legacypac's nomination makes absolutely no connection to anything at WP:NOT, and I don't see anything looking myself.  NB.  Robert McClenon mentions "undisclosed paid editing", but no one has made an allegation that it has happened here.   --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * User:SmokeyJoe - Dump dump dump. After the author-editor has choked the AFC queue with repeated tendentious resubmissions, we should get dumped on for not writing kind or unkind words, or what?  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:09, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Bringing AfC process failures to MfD with non-reasons for deletion deserves criticism. I do not agree that it is tendentious to follow the instructions at face value, I have looked at multiple cases, and it is an obvious conclusion that the authors think the "resubmit" button is the proper way to communicate.  Nominating their draft at MfD, adding yet more confusing templates to their userpage is absolutely and most definitely the wrong thing to do.  You claim, "all us reviewers are doing the same wrong thing" is not much excuse, and "we reviewers are just following the known-stupid process and using the known-stupid template" has worn through.  Over and over again, AfC is sucking in newcomers, and then stuffs them around, never treats them like people, templates all over their talk pages, and you think I should just go with the flow?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

This is not abuse of newcomers or failure to communicate, this is a business desperate to get their business on Wikipedia for exposure and link juice, our standards be damned. Perhaps they hope if they hit submit enough times someone will accept their promotion. If User:SmokeyJoe wants this page they are free to move it to mainspace themselves and defend it at the resulting AfD. Otherwise, don't vote to keep promotional pieces, likely bought and paid for, that are wasting volunteer reviewer time. Legacypac (talk) 04:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Collectively, big picture, AfC hurts the newcomers.
 * If you think this page is promotion, use the word “promotion” in your nomination. On my part, I do not agree it is promotional but think it is fine in draftspace until it gets more notice. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Join AfC - decline or accept drafts your way. Problem solved. Legacypac (talk) 21:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I concur it's not the worst promotion which is why I did not focus on that. It's not likely to go to mainspace though which is why I focused on that amd the repeated resubmits without solving the issues. Legacypac (talk) 05:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment thanks to for the ping. This article was originally created on de.wiki by an account that appears to be the official PR account of this company (this is allowed on that project, while it is not allowed on the English Wikipedia.) While I am generally opposed to native advertising, and consider most forms of commercial editing to be tantamount to that, this isn't the worst case I've seen, and I really don't see anything other than an SPA here, and not one that is particularly good at writing spam. I'm leaning delete here on NOTWEBHOST grounds, as this has been repeatedly resubmitted without any substantial changes, and from what I can tell, doesn't appear likely to have a chance of ever being an article, but I'd prefer someone who is more familiar with German look at the sourcing to see if there is any chance of this surviving in mainspace. Maybe  could give his thoughts? If it's spam, it should be deleted, but of the advertising and UPE we see goes, this isn't the worst example. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * TonyBallioni, I’m not sure you see the problem here. We waste a lot of time and effort on these suspected UPE product, and they are not offensively promotional, and actually clearly fail the NOTWEBHOST test as they are undoubtedly intended as contributed articles on plausibly notable topics. If there’s anything worse than the SPA author, it’s that it is clearly PR product. Is there evidence of consensus anywhere that this means deletion as opposed to AfC rejection with advice? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we have deleted things here before on grounds of no hope of ever getting to mainspace, which is an appeal to NOTWEBHOST. We are in an odd place here. It is clearly not in the interest of the encyclopedia to just have one person repeatedly resubmit an AfC draft that will never get to mainspace with no changes for over a year, but WP:NMFD tells us notability shouldn't be a primary concern. That leaves the main deletion rationale available as NOTWEBHOST: we don't exist to host content that has no chance of being an encyclopedia article, and if after a year at AfC and a week at MfD no one thinks it will ever be ready for mainspace, I think it is a fair argument. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - Author is blocked and isn't about to bring this into a neutral form (but paid editors seldom bring anything to a neutral form anyway). Does some real volunteer editor want to take over this cause, or can we get rid of it?  Robert McClenon (talk) 13:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Soft redirect to de:Malao_Film. That's as good as any holding pattern until en and de find a common ground for this sort of thing.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC) . Delete per Huon. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, there's not even a shred of an indication that the company is notable or that the draft could ever be turned into a valid article. The German article is blatant spam that would be speedied as G11 here, based almost entirely on their own press releases, IMDb and trivial credits listings that don't even give a single sentence of human-written content. There's nothing in the German article that would be even remotely useful for the English Wikipedia's purposes. I also tried to find German-language sources and came up empty. If better sources exist somewhere and haven't been found yet despite the draft being declined for insufficient sourcing four times so far, it would be easier to write a new draft based on those sources than to try and salvage this one. Huon (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Promotional intent and no present hope of notability. (and apparently violate our coi rules)  DGG ( talk ) 17:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. still being worked on. Given the apparent effort to improve the article, we shouldn't say it's hopeless.  DGG ( talk ) 20:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you mean to place this vote on a different discussion? It doesn't make sense, given this draft isn't being worked on, and you also already voted delete here. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * fwiw, when I come back to something, I sometimes think differently. But I should have noticed.  DGG ( talk ) 22:19, 14 May 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.