Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Aurorion/Swiggy

 __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:  move to Draft:Swiggy. No strong consensus, but there seems to be general agreement that moving this page to Draft:Swiggy would satisfy most of the concerns, so let's try that. However, given how many times this article has been created and deleted in various places and forms, one has to wonder whether it's worth anyone's time to continue spending time working on it. ‑Scottywong | babble _ 06:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Aurorion/Swiggy


Already deleted in article space after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swiggy. Deleted 7 times in article space and 5 times in draft space. A deletion decision in draft space will permit future tendentious re-creations to be sent to G4.

Have not yet looked into whether there is undisclosed paid editing or sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, per Articles for deletion/Swiggy, and due to it being promotion without suitable sources. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Whoa - I thought it was harmless to leave this in draft space. Could someone please explain why it's a problem if this remains in my account's draft space?

Secondly, I strongly believe that Swiggy is definitely a very notable company now. It is no longer a flash-in-the-pan startup, but rather the leading hyperlocal delivery company in India valued at above $3 billion. And there are plenty of reliable sources with sufficient coverage of the company to establish its notability.

Last year (wow, I had no idea so much time had passed!) I had requested to undelete the page, but an Admin had suggested that the article be restored to draft space instead. I was planning to work on the page to improve it with RS etc., but I didn't get the time for that.

Now, if someone else can work on the page, I would be happy to let them. But I don't think the page should be deleted. And unless there is any problem with the page remaining in my user draft space, why not keep it? If noone else takes the initiative, I will work on it sometime in the next few months. Aurorion (talk) 13:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - The problems with leaving it in your draft space include that the title is protected against creation in draft space. If you would like to move this draft to Draft:Swiggy, you may request the deleting administrator to unprotect it, or you may request Deletion Review.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)]
 * Question - Do you have any connection with Swiggy, such as but not limited to employment? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Response - I don't have any direct connection to Swiggy. To be clear, I am not employed with Swiggy, and never have been in the past. If I actually had any connection to Swiggy which made me particularly interested in making a promotional page for the company on WP, wouldn't I have actually spent some time to work on the page in the past year or so since it was put in my draft space? :) My intention for requesting that it be put into my draft space and opened for editing was purely from a neutral point of view. But like I mentioned above, unfortunately I could not devote much time to it since then. Aurorion (talk) 15:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I would still love to work on a page for Swiggy, but perhaps only after a few months once I am free from some other stuff I am busy with at the moment. What would be the implications of moving it to Draft:Swiggy like you suggested? Would other WP editors be free to work on it, until it reaches a good enough state that it's suitable to be moved to mainspace? Would appreciate some clarity on this, thanks. Aurorion (talk) 15:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak draftify: There's some statements in there that could be taken as promotional, but otherwise, everything seems fine. With a new author, this page seems fine as is to stick in the Draft namespace. –eggofreason(talk &middot; contribs) 20:10, 3 July 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.