Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:ShopeenBest

 __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. RL0919 (talk) 01:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:ShopeenBest

 * – (View MfD)

Declined G11. Not just a skeleton. Blatantly promoting the company website plus: all unsuitable source, promtional unrelaibel sources. And there are Zero other sources, which means that nothing, not even the skeleton, can be reused. Pages like this should always be deleted CSD#G11. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * https://www.youtube.com/...
 * https://www.instagram.com/...
 * https://www.facebook.com/...
 * https://twitter.com/...
 * Keep Those are not cited as sources, those are links to the company's own sites. As per WP:ELYES and WP:ELOFFICIAL one official web site should normally be included. Granted we don't normally include 4, but new editors will often not be aware of that restriction, nor in this case is it clear exactly which one of the four is the "main" site and should be retained. This was created less than 24 hours ago, and has not even been submitted for review -- it is not reasonable to expect full sourcing, or indeed any sourcing, at this phase. This is basically the content of an infobox at this point, plus a one sentence tagline or mission statement. It is not justifiable to nominate for deletion at this point, in my view. What is the point of draft space if early skeletons of possible articles must be deleted promptly? This is over the top. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 07:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I usually agree with you DES, but not across this line. When it is a promotional topic, AND, there are zero acceptable sources for starting an article, it has to go.  I used to argue that if we are nice, and patient, then they may return and add a quality source, and add content, but it never worked out.  When a new account turns up add writes promotion and links promotion, minimally WP:TNT applies, always deletion is required to give a simple answer.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't see one sentence as so promotional that . I don't approve of TNT, and don't accept its arguments in most cases, including this one. I have edited the draft, to remove the promotional sentence, and the extra web links -- it is now a bare infobox, with purely factual data. If someone finds and adds a few reliable sources, it can be expanded into a valid article, perhaps. If not, it will eventually go G13. I admidt I will be a bit surprised if notability is demonstrated, but I've been surprised before. Well, let's see what other editors have to say, SmokeyJoe. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - It's a stupid draft. I do approve of the TNT concept in article space, and usually for submitted drafts in draft space.  This hasn't been submitted yet.  It isn't ready for submission, let alone for article space, but tagging this for MFD because it isn't ready for article space defeats the purpose of having article space.  If you think that there is undisclosed paid editing, report it at the conflict of interest noticeboard.  This doesn't quack of UPE.  It's just a stupid draft.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No one says “undisclosed”. See the page creation edit summary (“ Biography of my company/ecommerce store. ”). The reason for deletion is the blatant promotion, citing only promotional sources. It WP:NOTPROMOTION policy or not?  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I originally tagged this draft for speedy deletion under G11, which was declined. I agree that draft space is draft space, and we shouldn't be deleting things in development unless there are serious problems (which I felt existed in this case). However, I think it important to think about where this draft could possibly go. In this case based on what I've seen so far, the answer is; nowhere. The website of the company is not fully functional, and has significant problems. This business was founded in August of this year . Doing a search for anything from a reliable, secondary source related to this business and came up with nothing. When the creator of the page made it, he indicated he is the owner of the business "Biography of my company/ecommerce store.". The Twitter feed has one follower, Instagram 75, and Yahoo 75. There biggest traction is on Facebook, but there has less than 1000. The creator of the page has now been blocked indefinitely . I'd like to dig more, but so far to me it's clear that  this is a COI/Paid editor trying to promote their nascent business which has been around for about two months. The business has a partially non-functional website, and apparently has not gained notice in secondary sources. Again, I'd like to dig some more, but I'm not seeing any reason to believe this draft will become anything other than stale. There's nothing to develop it into. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:22, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete or even Speedy Delete as G11. This is nothing but an advertisement -- and not even a competent advertisement -- and should have nuked immediately, Draft space or no Draft space. --Calton &#124; Talk 03:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * A G11 speedy has already been proposed and declined. When multiple experienced editors think a page should be kept, a speedy deletion is not clear-cut, and therefore should not be performed. That does not, of cource, prefent a consensus to delte being reached in thsi discussion. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - not sure it'll go anywhere, but it's a new skeleton at this point. Not remotely eligible for G11 - please don't nominate things like this for G11; CAT:CSD patrolling is a pain as it is, it doesn't need people adding obviously bogus requests. Wily D  09:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's no basis there for an encyclopedia article.  It was eligible for G11 at the time it was tagged (diff) and is hardly better now.  – Athaenara  ✉  17:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete this worthless piece of garbage forever.Catfurball (talk) 21:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - I don't think this should have been brought here, but left for G13. However, we're here now. The evidence given by Hammersoft above seems to show conclusively that the business is not notable, and since the creator is blocked, no one else is realistically going to work on it. May as well delete it. -Crossroads- (talk) 06:16, 27 October 2019 (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.