Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:National Data Guardian for Health and Care in England

 __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. Page has been moved to mainspace, so it can be re-nominated at AFD if desired. RL0919 (talk) 01:36, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:National Data Guardian for Health and Care in England


An overly promotional page on a non-notable organisation. Created by Special:Contributions/MSLSH with no other contributions and no COI disclosure. Submitted twice with no improvement. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:33, 10 November 2018 (UTC) Edited. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2018 (UTC) Hello, I am the author of this page and I am very sorry that it does not meet your standards. I must admit that I am finding this difficult, despite spending a lot of time trying to get it right. I did redraft it after the last review in August, and if it is not right I would really appreciate your help. I should declare that I work for NHS Digital, who host the Office of the National Data Guardian (NDG). I am not a 'paid editor' in the way that I understand that, but I suppose that I might be in your eyes as I work for NHS Digital who host the National Data Guardian's office. The NDG was concerned when she noticed that we (unlike the other national bodies that we work with daily) do not have a Wikipedia entry, and asked me to remedy this. If I, because of the nature of my employment, am not permitted to create this very much needed page, then I would really appreciate you advising on how I might make this happen. I absolutely don't wish to spam or promote - we are a national, government funded organisation due to be written into law in the next few months. We are not a private organisation, and it is very much within the public interest (and the interests of transparency) that we should have a purely factual Wikipedia entry. I entirely agree with you on that. I am just clearly bad at doing this! I have tried to be as factual as possible, even referring back to other similar organisations such as the Information Commissioners' Office, and it is just not apparent to me what is coming across as promotional and advertorial about it. I might just be too close to the content, but what I have included is all relevant, key facts about the NDG that would be of interest to those who might seek this page out. I feel quite crestfallen that it doesn't meet your standards, and so any specific advice or pointers you could give would be much appreciated. I desperately don't want it to be deleted, and I am very eager to get something approved, and to do the right thing, but this is all new to me. Many thanks for your help and comments so far.MSLSH (talk) 10:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment If the National Data Guardian is not notable by our guidelines there is something very wrong with our standards. So let's hope it is just the draft that is substandard or that some paid editing has not been disclosed. Thincat (talk) 22:55, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - Note edit summary by admin: "Not spam enough for G11", which is damning with faint praise.  As per Thincat, reads like undisclosed paid editing, resulting in a substandard draft about an almost certainly notable organization.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Mainspace and let anyone clean it up. This is not that bad. Legacypac (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Nom's comment: hmm, not sure if we should be placing orgspam from UPE users into mainspace. The cleanup usually does not happen. If an uninvolved editor wants to create an artile, they would not need this draft, so it's best deleted. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - I agree with User:K.e.coffman and disagree with User:Legacypac, in that spam from paid editors really is all that bad and is a slow toxin in Wikipedia. If there were a dedicated group of volunteers whose function was neutralizing spam, we could keep this and let someone clean it up.  But that is like waiting for an Easter bunny.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I've edited the article. I can't see where it is promotional. It is a government org and the page just recounts the major reports issued. There is plenty of spam here but this is not it. Legacypac (talk) 22:34, 19 November 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.