Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:The Crystal Campaign

 __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. If User:SmokeyJoe or someone else wants to take it to create some sort of example, they can request to have it userfied. Until then, it will rest in deletion. RL0919 (talk) 05:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:The Crystal Campaign

 * – (View MfD)

I bring this here to call attention to the most misleading promotional undeclared paid editor single article submission I have ever seen on Wikipedia. I know that's sort of an extraordinary statement that needs very good evidence. Consider: Tho many of these elements are routine promotionalism, and most by themselves reasons for not accepting a draft, this is I think unique in its combination of so many of them. If anyone knows of a worse, it would be interesting to see it.
 * 1) This gives the initial impression that it raises money from the public. It doesn't.
 * 2) It's an effort by a design studio   to design special releases of other company's merchandise that will direct some of the sale revenue to   mental health charities.
 * 3) It gives no indication of how much money it has raised, and what proportion goes to the charitable purpose.
 * 4) It lists the major companies & nonprofits that the studio has worked for, and tries to give the impression that it has designed these campaigns for them. There's no indication in the article that it has done so.  So this amounts to not just name-dropping but misleading name dropping.
 * 5) It has a bunch of celebrity endorsements. A few are its clients.
 * 6) It has focussed its release around crystals. It knows enough about WP to say that it's pseudoscientific, so whoever designed this article must have had other WP accounts also, and is presumably an undeclared paid editor who has done other articles as well.
 * 7) Part of the article is list of supposed properties of crystals
 * 8) A large part is devoted to showing the importance of the underlying problem the project addresses, rather than the project.
 * 9) It's full of buzzwords. To the extent that they're in lamost every sentence
 * 10) Repeated use of organization name

Purely promotional content should not be in any part of Wikipedia  at all, so we should remove it without waiting 6 months, unless there's a reasonable prospect of developing it into an article. This will obviously not get into WP in any form, so there's no likelihood of developing it. And I continue to think that violation of the TOU is a reason for deletion, tho I wouldn't like to see it a speedy, because it's easy to make errors.

Perhaps we need to keep some bad examples. If we do, I'd suggest first replacing company names with something like Company AAA, maybe doing the same for endorsers, and removing links. To maintain copyright, the earlier versions can be revdeled.  DGG ( talk ) 19:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per analysis from nom. I would have tagged this for G11 if I had seen it first, because it's a mess of promotional buzzwords. Yeesh. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 19:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as per SpicyMilkBoy, I would have tagged it for G11, but we are here, so reasons for G11 are also reasons for MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree. This is pretty bad, and has clear hallmarks of promotion.  I agree with considering bad examples. If we are quick to delete the worst examples, we hide the material from editors who should learn what PAID material looks like, and teach directly the PAID editors what gets them caught, clearly their slate so they can try again.  I support the idea of anonymising and moving to project space as reference material for detection of promotion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC) Note that user:Sherxali was WP:PAID compliant, he declared clearly and explicitly in his main userpage before saving the draft. I think Wikipedia policy is really screwed when it comes to PAID. I the permission to use undeclared alternative (aka “throwaway”) registered accounts for every PAID editing contract is pretty stupid.  We are seeing here the bad mistakes by PAID newbies, which we clean away, and we blithely ignore the more skilled PAID editors (generally undeclared). —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:47, 28 December 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.