Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Advent Technologies: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:40, 28 September 2020

Draft:Advent Technologies

Likely created by a sockpuppet/meatpuppet or meatpuppeteer/sockpuppeteer as highlighted in the block reason for the original account (I am not sure about this though, if this is confirmed then please speedy delete under section G5). The draft article also appears to be covert advertising (albeit not obvious enough for G11). Train of Knowledge (Talk) 05:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

leave for G13. No reason for deletion. MfD does not do sock puppet investigations. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:52, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: User:Maniadam/sandbox has been history merged into this page, and as such I have gone ahead and closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Maniadam/sandbox. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 22:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: As for the draft itself, it's pretty clearly written by someone with a WP:COI, and should probably be rewritten from scratch if the company is in fact notable. I'm more in favor of deleting clearly problematic drafts earlier in their lifecycle, especially if the creators have since been blocked, but I understand the viewpoint of those who would prefer to wait for G13 to handle it, hence the weak delete !vote. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 23:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete as per Nathan as a problematic draft in several ways. Possible sockpuppetry is not the issue, and would be SPI clerking if it were the only issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Socking is not the issue. Would need significant rewrite to be approved, but we don't delete drafts for that. Promotion that can be cured by editing, i.e. not at the G11 level, should be cured by editing, not by deletion, or if no one chooses to do the editing, by G13. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:40, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 * '''Weak delete''': As for the draft itself, it's pretty clearly written by someone with a [[WP:COI]], and should probably be rewritten from scratch if the company is in fact notable. I'm more in favor of deleting clearly problematic drafts earlier in their lifecycle, especially if the creators have since been blocked, but I understand the viewpoint of those who would prefer to wait for G13 to handle it, hence the weak delete !vote. [[User:Nathan2055|Nathan2055]]<sup>[[User talk:Nathan2055|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Nathan2055|contribs]]</sup> 23:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 *'''Weak Delete''' as per Nathan as a problematic draft in several ways.  Possible sockpuppetry is not the issue, and would be SPI clerking if it were the only issue.  [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 17:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
+*'''Keep''' Socking is not the issue. Would need significant rewrite to be approved, but we don't delete drafts for that. Promotion that can be cured by editing, i.e. not at the G11 level, should be cured by editing, not by deletion, or if no one chooses to do the editing, by G13. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]][[Special:Contributions/DESiegel|<sub>DESiegel Contribs</sub>]] 21:40, 28 September 2020 (UTC)