Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Steven A. Murphy

 __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. Problematic revisions can be removed with WP:REVDEL if necessary, otherwise having spammy revisions in the revision history is not a convincing rationale for deletion. ‑Scottywong | [squeal] || 23:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Steven A. Murphy

 * – (View MfD)

Promotional article thta I marked for G11, which was declined. Thesubject is notable -- not highly notable-- President and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Ontario Institute of Technology is President of a university, but not a major university.

The advertising nature of the article is exceptionally blatant."Murphy is on a mission to reinvent higher education for the 21st century and regularly pens thought-leadership articles " is one of many examples.

Of course, I could rewrite it, and even thought about doing so, But why should I or any of us do that? It wouldn't be difficult, but it would be totally unproductive, and it would leave the advertisement part in the history. We would be encouraging people to put in advertisements, in the hope that even if we detected that they were ads, we'd make articles out of them. This is a direct attempt to use WP as if it were PR.com. The thing to do, the only thing that indicates our views of this, is to immediately remove it. Even if one thinks it to not meet G11, we can still remove it here at MfD.

And if he were so important as to require an article, the course would be to delete this, and start over from scratch, to remove the history.  DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:TNT. Is likely notable, but this draft, and the sources it is based on, is terrible.  Biographies should not be started from the subject's official promotional webpage and from interviews they give.  It's not a matter of rewriting, its a matter of starting again with none of the current sources.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. I don't see any particular virtue in "removing the advertisement from the history", indeed I see it as a loss. (Also it would either lose the work of the earlier creator, or else lose required attribution.) Many articles have earlier versions in the history that were thoroughly unsuitable,m but =unless they were copyvios or attack pages, we don't revdel them. In general I see adding an article about a notable person to be a gain to the project, and her ethe work is mor than half-way done. What gain is there from deletion here? And while the 'reinvention" line is unsuitable -- unless an independent RS used it -- I domn't see the article overall as so blatantly promotional as the nom suggests. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 05:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete after reading the arguments of User:DGG and User:DESiegel and User:SmokeyJoe – I agree with User:DGG and User:DESiegel that the subject satisfies academic notability, and that the question is indeed whether the current draft can be used as the basis for a partial rewrite, or whether it should be thrown away to start over. I respectfully disagree with User:DESiegel as to declining the G11.  As User:DGG states, the current draft text is exceptionally blatant in its promotionalism.  Anything short of deleting the draft would send a message that submitting advertisements as articles is all right because the neutral volunteers will clean them up, so that the flacks can test how much they can get way with.  The argument is made that keeping and stubbing the draft is appropriate to preserve the attribution.  I disagree, in that I think that erasing the draft and the attribution is necessary to ensure that no attribution and no credit is given for this sort of puffery.  It isn't necessary to determine whether this draft is undisclosed paid editing.  A duck test should apply to paid editing as well as to sockpuppetry.  But if the author wasn't paid for writing this sort of fluff, they had even less of an excuse for it.  This should have been deleted at G11, and this should be deleted at MFD.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as needing TNT per the delete votes above. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Very promotional and borderline TNT territory.  However, if the subject is notable, I wonder if there is a stub article that can be saved from this?  Ultimately, if the editor had just posted this directly to the mainspace and it was brought to AfD, it could possibly have survived AfD, and carving out a stub would have been the most likely outcome?  Ultimately no good choices here, as even a decent stub will probably be PROMO'ed unless it is watched. Sigh. Britishfinance (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This could be easily deleted and recreated as a stub. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. No reason to delete a draft like this one. The editor can continue to improve and remove the promotional feel of the article. Draft is where this belongs for now. Wm335td (talk) 17:24, 12 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.