User believes page is advertising but COI has been declared. If they believe it wasn't written from a neutral point of view, editing it should've been preferable to make it so. I'm requesting that the draft is revived. (Redacted) 07:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
To applicant: Please advise the editor who deleted the page that you have opened a DRV, as required by point 2 of "Steps to list a new deletion review" listed at
WP:DRV. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
10:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Overturn speedy. The draft at the time of the speedy deletion was not exclusively promotional - it needs cleanup and trimming but those are matters that can be fixed with editing and don't require deletion, especially not of a draft which is not required to be perfect. If you think the COI makes the article irredeemable to the extent that it absolutely must be deleted and not given a chance to be improved then take it to MfD or just wait for G13.
Thryduulf (
talk)
20:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Endorse. Not the most blatant advertising I've ever seen but reads like the "about us" section of a company website. There was nothing salvageable that could have made a legitimate encyclopaedia article.
HJ Mitchell |
Penny for your thoughts?22:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Procedural Close - If this request is being made by a paid editor, they should make it from their account. Is the appellant trying to confuse the jury (the community at DRV)? If so, it won't work.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
22:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Endorsevery severe editing might have been able to salvage something non-promotional from that but it was largely promotional and getting rid of the promotional aspects wouldn't have left much. If the author has a COI then I'm even less inclined to let someone else do the author's cleanup for them. Hut 8.508:58, 10 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Endorse and keep deleted,Hut 8.5 nails it on the head. The state of this article, combined with the inherent obstacles from having a
paid editor applying for the undeletion, mean I believe that the best decision was taken here.
Daniel (
talk)
22:42, 10 January 2023 (UTC)reply
User believes page is advertising but COI has been declared. If they believe it wasn't written from a neutral point of view, editing it should've been preferable to make it so. I'm requesting that the draft is revived. (Redacted) 07:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
To applicant: Please advise the editor who deleted the page that you have opened a DRV, as required by point 2 of "Steps to list a new deletion review" listed at
WP:DRV. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
10:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Overturn speedy. The draft at the time of the speedy deletion was not exclusively promotional - it needs cleanup and trimming but those are matters that can be fixed with editing and don't require deletion, especially not of a draft which is not required to be perfect. If you think the COI makes the article irredeemable to the extent that it absolutely must be deleted and not given a chance to be improved then take it to MfD or just wait for G13.
Thryduulf (
talk)
20:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Endorse. Not the most blatant advertising I've ever seen but reads like the "about us" section of a company website. There was nothing salvageable that could have made a legitimate encyclopaedia article.
HJ Mitchell |
Penny for your thoughts?22:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Procedural Close - If this request is being made by a paid editor, they should make it from their account. Is the appellant trying to confuse the jury (the community at DRV)? If so, it won't work.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
22:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Endorsevery severe editing might have been able to salvage something non-promotional from that but it was largely promotional and getting rid of the promotional aspects wouldn't have left much. If the author has a COI then I'm even less inclined to let someone else do the author's cleanup for them. Hut 8.508:58, 10 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Endorse and keep deleted,Hut 8.5 nails it on the head. The state of this article, combined with the inherent obstacles from having a
paid editor applying for the undeletion, mean I believe that the best decision was taken here.
Daniel (
talk)
22:42, 10 January 2023 (UTC)reply