Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:PGSOFT

 __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) 00:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft:PGSOFT


This article has been repeatedly resubmitted with minimal improvements. It is created by someone with a fairly obvious WP:COI, and has little or no chance of ever passing the AFC process. A Google search reveals almost nothing in the way of reliable sources discussing "PGSoft", most of which is actually discussing an old company bought by Novell in 2000. The subject of this article fails WP:NCORP at this time. Brad v  03:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per the concensus at the recently closed RFC about Drafts like this. Legacypac (talk) 04:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Painfully obvious undeclared COI despite the author being pointed by myself to the WP:COI page. As the nomination says, there'll be unicorns living on Mars before this draft gets accepted as an article (I'm paraphrasing). Exemplo347 (talk) 07:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. &#8208;&#8208;1997kB (talk) 09:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Many problems, probably hopeless, but there is still a problem with AfC. This looks like an attempt at improvement and resubmission, which is following the templated instructions. This bad communication is Burning newcomers, not all of them UPE COI promoters. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've tried to approach the creator of the draft a couple of days ago and they've not responded. I can't speak for anyone else, but I've sent them a non-template message and added an extra ping for good measure, and nothing. If people don't want to communicate, how can I help them? Exemplo347 (talk) 13:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I too have approached newcomers with non-templated messages. It has worked at least once. It is a problem that most of the newcomers act like UPE throwaway socks.  Few deserve politeness, but if we are never polite then we are rude to the few genuine newcomers.  You are right.  My suggestion is that the decline template wording needs a massive change, that it needs to not be readable as saying to use the submit button to continue communication with the reviewer.  Also, move it all to the talk page, where it is normal to have threaded conversations, unlike in the header of an article.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well these attempts you mentioned are not enough to accept the draft and far from what's required to establish notability. BTW it looks like little rude to me too (which I will take care next time), but what I say? everything was explained to them by previous reviewers and still no significant improvement. &#8208;&#8208;1997kB (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The draft can’t be accepted. It may as well be deleted immediately, but the general situation remains. How to get off this turnstile?  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - Nine strikes is a whole inning with the side retired. As stated, this is another apparently conflict of interest, and definitely a single-purpose account whose minimal efforts at improvement are getting nowhere.  (If they really wanted to work collaboratively, they could ask for advice at the Teahouse.)  User:SmokeyJoe is partly right and partly wrong that there is a problem at AFC; the problem is tendentious resubmissions like this.  Yet Another Single-Purpose Account Mess (YASPAM).  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:02, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Inept submissions of unsuitable drafts is the first problem. Resubmission with no serious attempts to fix is the next problem. The overly soft decline template invites resubmissions making the problem worse. Do we agree on these points? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - Yes. Do you have a solution for the first or second problems?  I can offer some, but they will be terrible, and won't be worth it, and I won't describe them.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Some ideas ... “submit” may be the wrong word.  “Request feedback”. “This is ready for mainspace”.  SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Question - User:Legacypac - Is there a reason that you didn't tag this monster with NSFW? Maybe because it wasn't even worth it?
 * Delete - strike ten. Kill it with fire. TMGtalk 05:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I declined it two hours after this MfD started, so tagging NSFW seemed redundent. I like the idea of changing the text of the button. We changed the text beside the button and it seemed to help some. Legacypac (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Changing the text sounds like a good idea. I'd be happy to help with this, if I can. TMGtalk 16:17, 12 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.