Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Medice

 __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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Medice


Rejected 10 times at AfC amd finally deleted G13, one if the owners of the company has had this promotional article refunded. If this is not suitable, as I believe, let's delete it for good. Legacypac (talk) 02:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I note there's an article in deWP:, see  -- a much different and more appropriate article than this. I have great respect for the deWP standards of notability and nPOV, and I suggest deleting this promotionalism, and replacing it by a proper translation.  DGG ( talk ) 08:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep and avoid similar nominations in the future. WP:REFUND is not a blank check: admins can and do refuse to refund obviously inappropriate articles. That didn't happen here, and following a refund with a deletion nomination less than a week later violates the spirit of WP:BITE. the promotional tone of the draft is WP:SURMOUNTABLE; actual deletion of the draft is unnecessary. Just expurgate the promotional fluff in situ. VQuakr (talk) 02:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I will continue to seek deletion of spam regardless of how recently it was recreated. The page was rejected 10 times . Very few volunteers are here to fix spam up to acceptable levels for owners of companies to lazy/unskilled to meet our publishing standards. But hey knock yourself out fixing it before this MfD closes. Legacypac (talk) 04:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * It depends on the degree of spaminess-- beyond a certain level, it's better to get it out of the article history. If it's just cutting a few phrases, that's ok to remove, but if it takes a complete rewrite, it's better done from scratch. The problem is where it takes stubbification--where almost all the article is nonsense. In the past, we often did stubbify, but I think with the growth in pid and other promotional editing we need to use some denial--the deletion can have an impact--and if it was paid, they might even have to refund the money. It's more like thesituation with banned editors.  DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - Something that was restored less than a week ago should not be deleted. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 19:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , WP:SPA, WP:Reference bombing, looking like a paid editor? New writers are not understanding that a multitude of promotional sources doesn't make up for a lack of two independent secondary sources.  AfC reviewers are not giving useful feedback.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Respectfully SmokeyJoe this person has only edited this page about his own business since 2015. He has received many stock responses and handcrafted feedback on what to do. This is an example of AfC reviewers going way beyond to help - everything short of inventing RS that likely don't exist if the business owner can't find them in 2 years. Legacypac (talk) 04:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand me. I make a dispassionate observation:  The author repeatedly received the stock notices and responded by adding more references that equally failed to demonstrate notability.  The author does not understand how to demonstrate notability, and guesses wrong the reference bombing will help.  Reference bombing doesn't help, but it does make subsequent reviews harder.  Clearer communication from the reviewers could be the answer.  Conversations, encouraged by use of the talk page (never done), I think would be sometimes helpful, it would be helpful if the author were to ask what is wrong with the current sources.  It would be helpful if the reviewers anticipated the question.  Another possible answer might be for the reviewers to do a quick notability-sources search and make an authoritative judgement.  Note that the reviewers are reviewing for a different interpretation of WP:N than is applied in mainspace.  In mainspace, articles are only deleted if AfD reviewers are confident notability-attesting sources don't exist.  At AfC, reviewers block the road if the listed sources don't attest notability, a half-test.  Maybe the author should have been given 7 days to produce sources, or see it deleted.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. What better explaination of RS policy could a reviewer give than a link to the actual policy? I think the author is being given 7 days to find RS right here at MfD. Legacypac (talk) 05:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 7 days starting now is not fair because the author is not active now. 7 days from the date of failed review would be fair.  What better advice?  I was musing, at Wikipedia_talk:Notability for example, that for anything questionable, dubious notability for a for-profit company, and probably also for a BLP, that the author should be challenged to list 2-3 (no less than 2, no more than 3) sources that are independent and comment on the topic directly.  This would greatly simplify the task of the reviewer in assessing whether the topic is notable.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

The user was active enough to request a refund three days before this MfD started. It's not like this user edits anything else. Bottom of User:DGG's talk page has a link to where we can edit or propose edits to the stock messages. Legacypac (talk) 06:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * suggest only; actually editing that template requires a special permission and should not be done lightly or without discussion. Giving links to the actual policy may be necessary, buyt our policiesare not written in a way comprehensible to beginners.  DGG ( talk ) 22:04, 7 September 2017 (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.