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: keep . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Aaron Lown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

G11 was declined incorrectly in my opinion, so taking this to MfD to argue the case: this draft is unambigiously promotional and would take a complete rewrite to make it suitable for mainspace. The odds of it surviving an AfD in either its current state or in a rewritten state are approximately zero, so there is no reason to keep this around. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Clearly promotional and no indication of notability either. Few, if any, sources are focused on the article subject and none suggest inherited notability. Therefore, little chance it could be developed into an acceptable mainspace article. Triptothecottage (talk) 22:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to mainspace, allow testing at AfD. The draft has been Wikipedia:Reference bombed which makes it very hard for reviewing. I think the draft can be made passable by removing most of the references, the non-independent references. I am noting that the author Alysiamazzella (talk · contribs) has reached out for help, and that before now he was not even {{welcome}}d. I think G11 is only appropriate when citing a complete rewrite when there is not a single reference included that is good enough to start an article. Reference 4, supporting "which received the Gold award two years in a row awarded by Industrial Designers Society of America and co-sponsored by Business Week (2004 and 2005)", looks good enough, though unfortunately it is not linked/online.

For the author, I would advise him to first improve existing articles. Do this importantly to get a feel for how things are done, and for the community. Also importantly, use that as an opportunity in improve coverage on your topic of interest in existing article. Currently a "Aaron Lown" search returns only one occurrence in mainspace]]. Wikipedia:Orphan WP:CORP articles are rarely kept. WP:CORP needs to be met for any articles on companies, their products, or their founders/CEOs. Understand that Wikipedia is continuously assaulted by paid editors (staff employees or commissioned) to place subtle advertising in Wikipedia, and the resistance to that is stiff. If you have any connection to this person, read WP:COI and explain your self on your userpage, User:Alysiamazzella. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Moving to mainspace would be inappropriate because of how spammy it is. It'd be an instant NOTSPAM violation (as it is now), the second it got moved there. We don't need the added bureaucracy of another XfD when we can go ahead and delete it here for fundamentally failing our policies and guidelines. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the spamminess can be cut. As I proceeded with this analysis, I did become more pessimistic. If the spam and non-independent sources are not cut this week, it shouldn't be moved. I do have to note, again, that newcomers do not get good help or even advice at AfC. I think newcomers should be required to be autoconfirmed even before being allowed to draft in their own userspace or draftspace. This is for their own benefit. I had some thoughts on what we could do better at Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_60#Paid_editing.2C_Advertorials.2C_and_Reference_bombing. I think this person is plausible notable, and could have an article, but probably my post should be read in reverse. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep if the author has reached out for help, I think we should give him chance to improve his draft. UltraMagnus^speak 23:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The best advice to the author may in fact be to blow it up and start over. It certainly has an overall promotional cast, but I do not find it to be exclusively promotional, as is called for by WP:G11. Some statements seem to me to be objective and unbiased paraphrases of in-depth, independent, reliable sources, such as this article in The New York Times. I am unconvinced by the assertion that the draft could not be improved and made neutral such that if then moved to article space it would be likely to survive AfD.

If this were in article space, I might be glad of the lever of G11 to get it fixed or out of article space, but pages in draft space are, by definition, works in progress. The draft was written by an inexperienced editor who, if coached rather than bitten, may yet make a constructive contribution. Unless there is a compounding problem, such as tendentious editing, I cannot recommend deletion at this time. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - My justification is given at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Reviewer_help#Draft:Aaron_Lown. This is not how we want to run AfC. ~Kvng (talk) 14:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep yes, I agree with the sentiment that draftspace is naturally a "work in progress" and I think the G11 was correctly declined actually. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but don't yet move it to Main space. Indeed, if this were an AfD discussion (and not an MfD discussion), I would be recommending "delete". The draft does not demonstrate encyclopedic notability outside of the firm that he founded (Built NY). But that firm already has its own article and we are not being given any reason to think a stand-alone article for one of its co-founders is needed. And those two design awards mentioned in the lede? They went to the company, not to the subject himself. And did he even design those two products? One of the draft's sources suggests that, at best, he was a co-designer with one of the other co-founders. And although it doesn't make much of a difference here, I see that the draft's creator is asserting that the subject's uncle is a Nobel Laureate. But checking the list of Nobel Laureates is one of the easier things you can do on the Internet -- and that uncle is not a Nobel Laureate. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm fine withdrawing this, and would, but someone else supports deletion. It is a clear G11 candidate, and would have been deleted as that in an instant in mainspace (and likely in draftspace as well if a more active admin had reviewed it). If this goes to mainspace I will send it to AfD per CSD G11, but if the community is fine with this existing as a draft, I'm not going to fight it. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It’s not fine for G11, because it doesn’t need a complete rewrite to be made acceptable, and it definitely doesn’t meet G11 because Wikipedians in good standing have voiced support. You are indicating a lack of respect for the letter of CSD policy. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • G11 is very subjective, and as a whole, I take a much stricter view of it because I believe any spam can be deleted via XfD even if it doesn’t meet the G11 criteria exactly, so there is a need to be strict on deleting it without discussion, and not over use G11. I think this should have qualified for G11 (it does need a complete rewrite to not be spam), but others don’t so I’m happy to engage in that discussion again if it ever gets approved in a state anyway close to this via AfD. Given that others disagree with me, it obviously doesn’t qualify for speedy deletion anymore. I just think it should have, and would have in mainspace. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is contentious to G11 a page with references, and more so when some of the references are not promotional references. This is the case with this draft.
        G11 is not subjective, and if you think so you should stay clear of the boundary cases. I think you have glossed over the word "exclusively".
        I have been, here at MfD, been pushing back against others who argued that G11 doesn't apply if the topic is notable, and the page includes information that is correct and will be used in an improved version, things like birth dates. I have argued that "correct" is not sufficient, but that the information must have come from a reliable source for it to be kept. If the birthdate came from the subjects facebook page, I argue that it has to go, find a better source, and feel free to add a reliably sourced birthdate in the future. It is irrelevant if the unreliable Facebook turns out to be correct. So, I am not a rabid inclusionist seeking to narrow G11. You however, in advocating G11 applicability for a page that includes reliable secondary sourced commentary from independent sources, are pushing beyond the exclusively and fundamentally lines. This page could be stubified and made acceptable for mainspace with a small selection of existing sources and text.
        For an example of this sort of thing being well tested at AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tommy John (apparel company). I am not happy with this result, of paid commercial promotion surviving in mainspace, but the battleground should be XfD or policy discussion, not CSD actions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • We are in agreement here on everything, except the sourcing question: G11 has nothing to do with sourcing, only with prose. Despite my arguments here, I am actually probably one of the stricter admins when it comes to what G11 means, and will ordinarily not tag or delete something that isn't written in 1960s ad-speak: XfD is the preferred venue for deletion, and I agree the battleground on questions of anything that are not obvious should not be CSD actions. We just disagree on this particular draft, but as it is contentious now, it can only be deleted via an XfD discussion. Anyway, as I said, I'm not going to fight on this one in draft, and this has become more of a meta discussion than a discussion about the draft, so I think we should let it be here. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry to continue, but it is nice to clean up loose ends. G11 and sourcing? The sourcing comes in to play if the article is broadly promotional, but has a couple of paragraphs written acceptably. I look to the sources for those paragraphs. If the best paragraphs are sourced unreliably, then the paragraphs have no foundation and don't prevent G11. If the couple of paragraphs are reasonably written, and well sourced, then G11 doesn't apply, even if the rest is blatant promotion. So, I see quantity of sourcing being relevant if some of the content is not blatant promotion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with SmokeyJoe here. G11 is for unambiguous advertising or promotion. You (TonyBallioni) don't demonstrate that you have an uncontroversial interpretation of what unambiguous means so I hope, as an administrator you keep your activities in the open and use AfD, not CSD, to forward your deletionist cause. ~Kvng (talk) 17:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.