Mystery Tribune ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

It was mentioned promotional material used which was not the case. Eehsani ( talk) 18:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Not being able to view deleted content I don't know whether this was blatantly promotional or not, but I can see that the log entry given when this was deleted was incorrect. The article was not previously deleted four days ago, but two years and four days ago. Phil Bridger ( talk) 21:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC) reply

• The google cache version here doesn't appear to be particularly promotional. The references contained don't seem to establish notability so if there isn't more out there, I doubt this would survive an AFD. -- 81.108.53.238 ( talk) 22:16, 18 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Overturn (See reasoning below) - I wouldn't say this article is particularly promotional - certainly not to the point that it warrants a CSD. It may or may not satisfy notability, but can always be sent to AfD for that, which would give the chance for source hunting. Nosebagbear ( talk) 22:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. The language in the article is not unduly promotional. Now, if you look at the version at the time of the AfD two years ago, that version could have qualified for CSD G11. However, the most recent version is not unduly promotional in tone, and there has been work done to improve the sourcing (although I still have reservations about it). Those reservations might rise to the level of a second AfD, but I do not see where deletion is justified under criteria G11 or G4. — C.Fred ( talk) 22:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• ( edit conflict)I've temporarily restored the article.
  This was neither a correct G11, as deleted, nor a correct G4, as the deletion summary implied. (The version deleted at AFD was actually closer to a G11.) Nonetheless, getting this article restored just long enough to see it deleted at AFD again isn't going to do you any favors - if nobody cares enough to write a Wikipedia article about a web publication besides its editor and cofounder, it really probably shouldn't have one. See User:JzG/And the band played on... for what this path leads to. — Cryptic 22:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse I originally tagged this as G11 (I was not aware of the previous AfD, which is nowhere to be seen in the article history). When I see an editor writing about his own journal, including links to booksellers (like Amazon), that clearly seems promotional to me. (As an aside, if this goes to AfD again, I predict a "delete": if its own editor is not aware of any sources clearly showing notability, then those probably don't exist. But that is not for this DRV to decide). -- Randykitty ( talk) 22:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Overturn I can see why this was "tagged and bagged" as a G11, but I don't feel it hits the bar of G11. Hobit ( talk) 00:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per WP:COI, WP:UPE, and WP:DENY and salt. Also, block User:Eehsani as WP:NOTHERE. Those who are pointing out that this doesn't fit WP:G4 or WP:G11 are correct, but we're not here to provide free webhosting services. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse It's borderline. WP:G11 includes self-promotional works that can't be rewritten to be non-promotional, and I don't think this one can - there are no good sources. You could also argue whether this fails WP:NPOV, which WP:G11 requires. I'm endorsing since I think the call within the bounds of reason. (I'd be shocked if this survived an AfD.) SportingFlyer T· C 02:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Paid editingas the deleted admin, I'm not going to ivote here, but I'll just note that the Eehsani is the editor of the magazine and is therefore an undeclared paid editor who has so far failed to declare any sort of WP:COI as required by our T&C, despite my request on his talk page. I don't know why we are bending over backwards to help someone defying our rules to sell his wares Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse I don't think this meets the G11 standard but there was a fair bit of content in it which sounds promotional and I don't think we should be doing favours to paid editors. Hut 8.5 11:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - bad faith appeal. I've blocked the nominator for being a single-purpose advertising account and violating the terms of use. MER-C 16:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC) reply

• MER-C good call! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - i stand by my initial evaluation as regards the promotional nature of the actual content of the article. However, as it definitely is a paid editor, and disclosure has not been undertaken, (and there aren't major editors of the current version) - a deletion is the correct call. Nosebagbear ( talk) 18:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Creating user is a name match for the editor, the most charitable reading of the article is a directory entry, but actually it's obvious spam. Guy ( Help!) 08:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Looks like the nom is blocked. I'd be fine with this DRV being closed on that basis. Would keep the status quo (which is where we are headed anyways). Hobit ( talk) 14:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC) reply

TriStar Products ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

This was moved to draft space. Organization is a major company selling prominent products such as the Dream by Genie bra with over $1 billion in retail sales. WP:TOOSHORT states that Wikipedia has many stubs. I support keeping the article, or moving this to AFD for a more publicized discussion. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 16:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC) reply

• No deletion to review, no action to take here. If @ Jax 0677: thinks Draft:TriStar Products is ready for mainspace, then all they need to do is submit it for review via the WP:Articles for creation process. I endorse the move to draft space and the non-creation of a redirect. — C.Fred ( talk) 16:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse draftification. At least based on the sources in the draft, this doesn't come close to meeting WP:NCORP. A BBB directory listing, a Bloomberg directory listing, something on prweb, and something in the Daily Mail. Not a good source among them. If you've got better sources, add them to the draft. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Overturn move didn't we have an RfC about moving an article into draft space as a way to bypass AfD? If it doesn't meet a speedy criteria it goes to AfD. A move to draft space shouldn't be away around our deletion policies. It looks like it would be deleted at AfD. Hobit ( talk) 00:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC) reply

I don't follow every RFC, so I probably missed that one. A link would be appreciated (and might result in my changing my !vote). -- RoySmith (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC) reply

• Reply - Agreed, that this is a way to bypass AfD. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 14:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC) reply

• The RfC is summarized (and linked to) at [1]. It wasn't conclusively closed. Hobit ( talk) 07:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment The draft is blatant spam for the bra without any indication of notability. If it hadn't been brought here, I would have G11 speedied on sight. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • If this meets G11 criteria, then it should just be deleted. If not, it should go to AfD. Hobit ( talk) 07:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• @ Jax 0677: I see you submitted the draft. This has me confused. Did you honestly think that the draft, in the state it was in at the time, with the references it had at the time, was ready for mainspace? I don't see how it could possibly meet WP:AFC/RI#Step 2: Notability and verifiability with those sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse draftification as a kinder alternative to deletion, which would otherwise apply (it's close to WP:CSD#A7 territory). This article is woefully undersourced and needs a lot of work to rise above a directory entry and demonstrate WP:CORPDEPTH. Jax 0677, rather than arguing please simply improve it. Guy ( Help!) 08:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep in Draft When an article is moved to draft space in this manner, the author can move it back without going through AfC, ifthey insist on doing so. But usually that's not wise--if there were substantial objections enough for it to be moved to Draft, it would be better improved and submitted. And that's the case here. If it is moved to mainspace in its current state, it will certainly be sent to afd, and very probably deleted. Additional substantial 3rd party independent published reliable sources, are needed. I wouldadvise keepingin in Draft until they become available. DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Draft:Cardano (cryptocurrency platform) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

I feel that the page has been deleted in error by Randykitty as I contested the nomination on the talk page, but did not see any reaction. The Cardano (platform) was live most of 2018 and then deleted. I rewrote the article twice, but it was speedy deleted. I asked a lot of Wikipedia 'collegues' to help me create a good Wikipedia article and even got help from an admin. As you can see on the deleted talk page. FlippyFlink ( talk) 22:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC) reply

• Without looking too closely, this doesn't really rise to the level of what we'd G11 in other subject areas, but I'm leaning towards endorsing as a WP:G4 based on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cardano (platform) (and subsequent deletions and saltings at multiple titles). @ David Gerard:? Your opinion? — Cryptic 22:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Hello @ Cryptic: I tried not to avoid WP:G11 by writing it in a neutral way. So I wrote a new version from the groud up and thus also tried to avoid WP:G4. I apologized on the deleted talk page for the numerous pages and the renaming done by someone else. As you can also see on the deleted talk page I contacted all the 20+ Wikipedia members who commented or contributed to the article and asked for comment. Any feedback on better abiding by the rules is greatly appreciated. -- FlippyFlink ( talk) 10:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• I don't think it's a G11. It's a draft that a pile of us have been working on for a while, trying to use decent sourcing. Here's a Pastebin of the deleted wikitext - David Gerard ( talk) 13:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• There are still Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies in place. Bkissin ( talk) 20:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Overturn the text isn't nearly promotional enough for G11 in draft space. And G4 deletion (suggested above) wouldn't be valid, as the deletion of an article in mainspace doesn't stop people from creating a draft about the topic. Hut 8.5 21:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Restore to Draft and, optionally, send to MfD. As a draft, it's not quite at the G111 level--we are more tolerant there , because the articles are in draft space so they can be improved, and they should normally hve achanceat this. Sometimesit's so hopelessly promotional as not to be even potentially improvable, and then G11 in draft is valid, but this is not quite so hopeless. DGG ( talk ) 02:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC) reply