Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Unique Features

 __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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Unique Features


This draft about a non-notable film production company is the work of sockpuppets. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete now rather than wait to discourage them. Legacypac (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete 6 different accounts behind this to be precise, one of whom blocked. None have them have responded to the questions raised about paid editing and CoI. CoolSkittle  (talk) 22:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * User:CoolSkittle, The failure to answer simple questions is definitely, in my books, a negative. However, please link to these unswered questions. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * See the AfC comments on the page, User talk:SmithDDD789, Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 137 and User talk:SmithyD. CoolSkittle  (talk) 01:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, like I said, broad allegations, nothing specific, pointing to a blocked account that was an old username name block renamed before the noticeboard report. Sorry, no, these notice board reports and MfDs are so sloppy they waste more time than they are supposed to save. Keep, merely TOOSOON. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Plausibly notable, very plausibly WP:TOOSOON which is a reason to keep in draftspace.  Sockpuppetry is not dealt with at MfD.  No tendentious resubmission.  The AfC comments say more reliable sources are needed, and implies that when more are added the proper thing to do is to resubmit.  You can't blame anyone for doing that.  I think it looks a perfectly reasonable draft, but it not yet ready for mainspace, it needed better and more direct coverage.  Advise the authors of WP:DUD, and to get some experience by improving existing articles.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - I see that there is an apparent disagreement as to principle with User:SmokeyJoe, and that is whether the apparent but not proved Terms of Use violation of Undisclosed Paid Editing is sufficient reason to delete. That seems to be the point of disagreement.  If that is the case, then SJ and I will disagree.  If there is some more specific issue, please explain.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If you want to allege WP:UPE violation, please do so more clearly in simple terms. Mention of sockpuppetry is not good enough, especially when I look into it, find a mere username block, and see it was quickly and simply remedied.  Newcomer sockpuppetry is a common mistake easily forgiven.  WP:UPE violation is much more serious.  Please provide evidence.  Also note, evidence of WP:UPE is often accepted as sufficient for a WP:CSD deletion, and so we are used to only seeing the weak cases brought to MfD. My considered opinion here is that it is a mere case of WP:TOOSOON.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Neither the state of the draft nor the sockpuppetry alone are enough to delete in my opinion, but together they just barely are. Best to start fresh on this topic.  This becomes a slam-dunk delete if UPE is substantiated.  Tazerdadog (talk) 18:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - How does one substantiate UPE, anyway? I think that this draft walks like a UPE Duck, swims like a UPE Duck, flies, and quacks.  But it is hard to bring in a feather of a flying duck for microscopic observation.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Make the allegation, and give an explanation for why you believe it. An SPA on topics related to this one topic?  A UPE DUCK pre-edit history.  Please distinguish between UPE and COI, because the first will prime me for supporting deletion a lot quicker than the second.  COI so often catches newcomers innocently editing on what they know about.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC) As per my answer to CoolSkittle, post questions to the suspected UPE.  UPEs, specifically the alternative throwaway accounts of editors we already know working amongst us, are loath to answer questions that will give away subtle clues.  Ask them these questions, and link them. Any half competent technology aware person can use a dedicated device through a VPN not used with a registered account in the previous six months to avoid checkusers, who catch the inept, but few can maintain multiple fictitious personas.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:41, 10 March 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.