Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Tungsten Branding

 __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:  keep. There were five responses in response to the nomination, one of which was only a comment. Of the other four responses, all favoured either keep or weak keep (split 50/50). The arguments put forward generally centered around WP:G11 by waiting for the six-month period to expire at which point it could be speedily deleted, provided it was not unambiguous promotion or advertising. The article has a number of reliable sources, though the degree to which they speak to significant coverage is unknown. Nevertheless, given that we have pre-established criteria for speedy deletion, concuring with the consensus, it does seem reasonable to wait it out. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T · C  19:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Tungsten Branding

 * – (View MfD)

Fails WP:NCORP. I know we don't normally hold drafts to NCORP, but this was created in mainspace and moved to draft by ; had it not been moved to draft, it would have surely been deleted at AfD, so holding it to that same standard here doesn't seem unreasonable.

Since being moved here, two months ago, it had a single source added, which is just a passing mention, and then immediately submitted for review. The article itself is a classic example of WP:REFBOMBing and almost certinly WP:UPE. A previous version of Tungsten Branding was deleted under G11 back in 2013. The current version isn't any better. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - In my opinion, once a page has been draftified, it can be left in draft space until the G13 clock expires, or until there is a conduct-related reason to delete it. Leave it in draft space.  Either it will be improved, or it won't be improved.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The references were too strong for an A7, it wasn't really G11 (the version that got deleted by G11 was considerably worse & was imo a good G11), and it probably wouldn't pass AfD. The alternative is draft. That's why we have Draft.  The odds are it won't get improved enough, but it might,  DGG ( talk ) 17:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I must respectfully disagree with, That's why we have Draft. WP:DRAFT says, ... where new articles may be created and developed, for a limited period of time.  This wasn't a new article.  What's been happening with draftspace is it's becoming a dumping ground.  I don't think unilateral draftification is a good thing.  On the one hand, it's effectively a pocket WP:CSD, with no specific criteria that have to be met.  On the other, it's a magic, deletion proof talisman that lasts for at least six months, depending on how many people poke at it and reset the G13 clock.  If there's something in mainspace that you think isn't notable, the right thing to do is bring it to AfD.  Tossing it over the wall to draftspace just lands us in the mess we're in now.  -- RoySmith (talk) 23:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. This link on their own website to their News and Press clippings is just too much decent quality RS to qualify under any kind of CSD criteria as pointed out by . I couldn't myself find any clear WP:SIGCOV on the company, so would agree with  that it probably wouldn't pass AfD (although, some of the interviews with its CEO in major RS could be taken as contributing to WP:BASIC at AfD - E.g. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability).
 * However, as per, I have seen this conundrum in MfD sometimes where an article that cannot get out of draft (e.g. blocked author, blocked by AfC reviewer), comes to MfD, but ultimately MfD realise that it cannot act as AfD and opine on notability (especially when it is not an unambiguous fail). I think RMcC is right, let the G13 clock run out, barring some uninvolved editor trying to improve it and moving to Mainspace in the meantime (from which it can be sent to AfD).? Britishfinance (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Not promotional except (arguably) by its mere existence, complies with NPOV. Plenty of cited sources, i haven't assesed them to see if they have significant coverage or would establish notability, but that is not relevant for a draft. No policu-based reason for deletion has been mentioned, and I see none that could apply. Leave for G13 or improvement, whichever occurs. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 04:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak keep provided the tone is not G11 worthy that it would need a complete WP:TNT rewrite. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 21:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep it is in draft where it should be. Not bothering to go over every ref I see deleting a draft of a potential article as a negative to the project. Wm335td (talk) 22:19, 11 November 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.