Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Manscaped

 __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:  keep. Most participants do not believe deletion is a constructive step at this point. RL0919 (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Manscaped

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

Deleted multiple times by multiple reviewers. Highly promotional, and there will never by a possible article.  DGG ( talk ) 02:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is a possible article.  It is WP:TOOSOON, but this is a case of flagrant saturation promotion and review manipulation.  Seriously, google it.  It is just a couple of reliably sourced articles on commercial practices during covid restrictions.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Timtrent Has provided a very good very detail decline explanation.  has not edited since.  The comment should be left live, in the context of the draft, to be read.  Deletion is not required unless the draft is resubmitted without fixing. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: Editor does not understand the meaning of notability nor reliable sources. See TimTrent's observations. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am undecided between deletion and retention. In favour of deletion is the fact that the creating editor ought to view it as a spur to start again from the ground up, using references as a baseline and creating the text from what the references say. Against that, in favour of retention is the fact that MfD very rarely chooses to delete drafts on the simple basis that they will eventually either become acceptable and accepted, or wither on the G13 6 month vine. At the moment these two even out for me. The organisation does not yet have any proven notability, that is certain. What is not certain is whether sources showing that notability exist. My own internal arguments mean that I am not yet able to form an opinion. What I would like to see is the creating editor take the draft and shake it hard to remove the dross, and start with a blank  draft. Then they can seek to prove  notability.  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 21:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep in order to allow them to take 's advice into account. Should they resubmit again without improvement, then I would support deletion. —  csc -1 00:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete without SALTing. This draft has been declined 7 times by 6 reviewers, for multiple reasons that are mostly valid, so that little progress if any is being made.  No need to give the author another chance, in my opinion.  The subject probably is notable, but the author is just hashing and is not about to submit an acceptable draft.  Delete this draft as a way of blowing it up to start over.  If the author resubmits another useless draft, we may need to request action that is not available in a content forum, such as a partial block, but this is a content forum.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * My disagreement with this is that the draft has never been REJECTED. Rejection is a step to precede MfD, and then you wait for the author to ignore the feedback before seeking deletion.
 * If the last reviewer did not REJECT, but instead gave detailed constructive feedback, and that was the last activity, then deletion is premature.
 * Also looking back, the nom User:DGG writes "Deleted multiple times by multiple reviewers". This is not true.  The draft log shows one G13 deletion.  A prior G13 deletion is not a reason to delete.  G13 is a reason for automatic REFUND.
 * The only valid reason for deletion that I see is "WP:NOTPROMOTION, the draft is hopelessly promotional". I think it is merely "promotional", but not irretrievably, by draftspace standards. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Most reviewers never use reject. The function was added only recently, and there is no clear understanding about its proper use. It's not a required step to getting rid of an article. The purpose is to try to discourage further attempts. It works sometimes. I'd br reluctant to add additional formal required steps to our procedures.  DGG ( talk ) 06:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * User:DGG, the “Decline” option results in the author being invited even encouraged to edit and improve and press a big blue button to resubmit. It is completely incompatible with the draft being suitable for rapid deletion via MfD. I campaigned for a long time for the REJECT option, and it was implemented years ago. Reviewer can’t not know about the REJECT option, it is quite big and red.  Reviewers who DECLINE not REJECT the draft are saying that the draft has some hope.  Here, you have nominated after someone else’s DECLINE. It reads like a repudiation of the review by the other reviewer.  If you think they reviewed it poorly then you should re-review it, and slap on your own REJECTED template. Having done that, the question is why would you the proceed to nominate at MfD?  The normal thing is that the REJECT template gets read and understood.  Deletion is reserved for when the author still doesn’t get the message that the draft has no hope.User:DGG SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking at the work of AfC reviewers, you will see that about half the time they give the briefest look possible, using whatever reason seems appropriate, leaving no detailed comments, and very rarely using Reject.In all WP processes many people do them in the quickest way possible, rather thaqn adapting the procedures to fit the situation. We need to spread the word that Reject should be used more widely.  DGG ( talk ) 21:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. This draftspace article is still being worked on, has not been abandoned and has never been resubmitted without substantial changes taking the feedback into account. How are new editors supposed to learn to finesse articles if they are deleted while in draftspace? Iskandar_323 (talk) 7:30, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: Having considered further after my comment and after a conversation with on my talk page I believe that deletion at this point would be counter productive. I would like to see the next iteration of the draft be a total rewrite based upon WP:42 references, and likely far shorter, and this is my advice to Iskander. I believe we still have a draft that can make forward progress assuming they can find the references, and that we should not appear to deprive them of the chance to do that. Iskandar_323 should note, though, that a deletion here will not prevent their creation of a brand new and much tighter draft. It my be that  they choose to abandon this version and create version 2, in whcih case more power to their elbow. If they do that they should suggest themselves that the version we are discussing be deleted.  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 10:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * We don’t often say WP:TNT in draftspace, but maybe this one should be TNT-ed. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think I can withdraw the MFD at this point, but I don't object to anyone who wants to give it another try DGG ( talk ) 22:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @DGG With two additional opinions to delete, while you can withdraw your nomination, the discussion has to run to the end. In other words you may express the fact that your own opinion has changed, assuming that it has, but others cannot be deprived of their delete !votes by an early closure. Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 22:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC) I thought that was exactly what I was saying.   DGG ( talk ) 23:16, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Don’t withdraw if that means you regret the nomination. This has been a very interesting discussion on a quite borderline case. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @DGG probably was 😇 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 22:21, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - I mostly agree with User:DGG and I mostly disagree with User:SmokeyJoe about Reject. I will take my responses to them to the AFC talk page, since this page is likely to be archived shortly.  By the way, I am not withdrawing my Delete, and (as noted by User:Timtrent) I request that this MFD be given a normal close.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:57, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * at this point, I would probably say something like "uncertain". But I will continue bringing uncertain cases here, because it's really the only place to get a group discussion on a problematic Draft-- just as I have from my start here sometimes brought an article  to AfD when I think the community needs to decide.   DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I completely support DGG’s actions. This is an interesting boundary case. The draft is worthless, and has no chance of passing AfD with current sourcing.  It is promotion, but not so bad as to require deletion from draftspace.  My opinion, my !vote, should not be read as a disagreement with DGG, but as a slightly different view.  This draft, given its decline with detailed comment, should stay so as to allow the authors plenty of time to read it.
 * Tongue in cheek, I suggested it is possible that it could be rewritten to describe the saturation promotion for this secondary rate body grooming product (read the independent reviews). Maybe I shouldn’t have. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:46, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * And, as I just commented on the Draft, whatever draft or article we have should describe the product line the company actually makes, rather than use vague euphemists, like "male grooming"  DGG ( talk ) 21:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC)


 * REJECTED. Having looked long enough at the current sources, and searched for more, I have AfC-REJECTED the draft. This means that a resubmission can see it come back here, or it will sit and wait for WP:CSD. It is possible that new sources will appear, and if so I advise any proponent to follow the advice at WP:THREE. More sources cannot help when the best sources fail.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: It seems to me that it matters not at all, now, how this is closed, though it is time to close it. Normally this will wither on the G13 vine now, which arguably just passes deletion 6 months into the future if this be closed no consensus; or keep (0.95 probability). If our intention is to be useful to the creating editor then the closer might choose delete in order to spur them into a ground up rewrite based only on what the very best sources state. The rejecting reviewer makes the point that there are no current useful sources that they can find. Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 11:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a useful source analysis on the talk page. Deletion is not a good way forward.  Source analysis in cases like this is quite complicated. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:05, 15 August 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.