Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:RISE Financial Technologies

 __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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 16:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Draft:RISE Financial Technologies

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

Draft resubmitted three times after streaks of being declined to move into draftspace. I'll not nominating this draft for notability failures, but the repetition of being submitted, and being re-submitted. User:Ahthga YramTalk with me! I want to change my name! 15:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Can you please point to the policy that says a draft should be deleted for "repetition of being submitted, and being re-submitted"? Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - Not enough repeated resubmission to warrant either deletion or sanctions. The originator should be asked whether they have a conflict of interest (and I am doing that) and DoubleGrazing already did that.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - Resubmitted after not answering inquiry about conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Robert_McClenon, can you check that please. On my reading for the draft history, the draft has not been resubmitted after the COI question. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * User:SmokeyJoe - DoubleGrazing asked JuliaSusser about COI on 7 August at 1648. JuliaSusser resubmitted on 13 August at 0029.  Hatchens then declined it, and RebeccaWhellen resubmitted it.  DoubleGrazing asked RebeccaWhellen about COI on 16 August at 1006. So there had been a resubmission by an editor who had seen a COI inquiry.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this is too complicated, multiple editors, asking in weird places. I would like to see the record of COI enquires on the talk page, Draft talk:RISE Financial Technologies, whether done there with pings, or links to user_talk posts.
 * I think deletion at this point, as punishment for not responding to a poorly defined process of COI Q&A, is not justified.
 * "repetition of being submitted, and being re-submitted" does not clearly meet the standard of "tendentious resubmission", which usually means resubmission without improvement. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment oops, typo. It should be 'move into mainspace'. User:Ahthga YramTalk with me! I want to change my name! 02:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. I do not see tendentitious resubmission, just resubmissions after improvements, which is exactly what the templated instructions tell the author to do.  The question about COI appears to have only been asked on the last decline.  Comments and questions at the top of the draft are a pretty weird to communicate.  If you want to penalise the author for note answering a question, I think you should ask the question, directly WP:pinging them, in a new section on the draft talk page.  If you ask at their user_talk, then link to that.  If you just ask on the draft header, it is unclear how the author is supposed to respond.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:12, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment If anyone has a problem with the way I query COIs, they can take that to my talk page, not complain at XfD, thanks. In any case, the question here isn't whether there is a COI, and whether that has been declared or queried correctly and in what order; the question is whether this draft should be deleted (or should even have been nominated for deletion). I'm not aware of the policy that says a draft should be 'punished' for suboptimal behaviour of the creating editor or draft submitter, but I'm happy to be proven wrong. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I changed my mind, I'll withdraw this nomination for good and rewrite the content if possible, if the sources are notable enough and covers significant content on the company itself. Moving this into the mainspace is unlikely even they rewrite the full content. Thanks. User:Ahthga YramTalk with me! I want to change my name! 08:47, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have no problem with the way that User:DoubleGrazing queries conflict of interest, which they did with a template for the purpose on the user talk page of each submitter, and I thank them for asking. I don't think that User:SmokeyJoe is criticizing DoubleGrazing, but rather is criticizing the COI process.  I disagree with SmokeyJoe if they are saying that an editor's user talk page is a weird place to ask about COI.  I do think that there is a conduct issue with an editor who resubmits a draft, ignoring a COI inquiry.  Maybe partially blocking the editor is more appropriate, but MFD is a content forum.  If SmokeyJoe thinks that we need a better COI inquiry process, maybe Village Pump is where to discuss?  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:47, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Querying COI using a template on someone's user_talk page sounds perfect. The problem here is that this is not linked.
 * I criticise a comment about a COI query in the draft header comments being used as as a reason to delete a draft, which is what I read . Robert McClenon (18:58, 16 August 2021) as doing.
 * A comment about User:DoubleGrazing's COI queries, is that I cannot find them. It's not that his querying is a problem, or his mention of the query is a problem, but it is a problem that non-response is given as a reason for deletion without the queries being linked.
 * My preference would be for these queries to be done on the draft_talk page, or linked from the draft_talk page. If the draft is ever mainspaced, these COI enquiries are forever relevant history.  If the draft is to be deleted with these queries as evidence, they need to be easily seen. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:55, 18 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.