Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Company Of Wolves

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: no consensus . No consensus to delete; SmokeyJoe makes a fairly good case for borderline notability. Feel free to mainspace it if you want. I couldn't find any additional refs so I'm going to leave that up to anyone else. If the IP isn't going to resubmit, it'll die a G13. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Company Of Wolves

Draft:Company Of Wolves (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Declined 9 times since Aug 2016. Bringing for discussion if this needs to be main spaced over the AfC declines or deleted. Legacypac (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would prefer you to be counting the number of reviewers who declined, noting how many are in good standing. Eg ignore SwisterTwister. If the page is to be mainspaced over their collective rejections, then all need to be pinged and subjected to a re-training excercise. In cases like this, involving promotion of something commercial, including a company including bands, it’s products including songs, founders and CEOs, I think reviewing the first three references is decisive enough. WP:Reference bombing has to be countered. For this page, the first reference all music.com, I’m not sure if it is reliable. The second reference is not reliable. The third reference doesn’t t mention the subject. Two of the first three references fail to attest notability, so it fails. Tagged the page with Draft Rejected, fails Wikipedia:Notability. Ensure that the text “... edit ... resubmit” is removed from the taggery. These pages need clearer blunt forceful rejection, but not deletion. Delete, and expect the content to reappear repeatedly, the author can’t read deleted reject messages. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination should come up their watchlists. With this many experienced reviewers time wasted and a reasonable chance the page will be resubmitted forever it's time to make a final deletion decision. Legacypac (talk) 05:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
MfD is the appropriate venue for all Drafts including AfC submissions. Legacypac (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
MfD is a forum for discussion deletions. Reasons for deletion pretty much have to come from WP:NOT or WP:UPNOT for userpages. The onus is on the nominator to articulate a reason for deletion; Legacypac has not. In short, "Keep", no articulated reason for deletion. Previous silly suggestions to turn MfD into "miscellany for discussion" have always been reject, and should one succeed, it will destroy MfD as a viable forum. I oppose you using MfD as "AfC rejections review" or for deciding whether drafts should be mainspaced. "Declined 9 times" speaks to a behavioural issue. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a Draft that has been rejected 9 times by various editors. Evidnetly it is not viable. That's a lot of editors who think this is not suitable for mainspace. If there is a behavioral issue it is with the editor that submitted this 9 times without fixing it or getting the message that this is not a proper topic. Legacypac (talk) 02:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SmokeyJoe, nothing is preventing you from doing just that. DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, yes there is, I have been screamed at before for for doing major actions on a page at MfD. The expectation is that no major action, especially anything that would remove the {{mfd}} template, is to be made until the MfD is closed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support the page being deleted.. Contrary to what someone said above, this was not a behavioural problem on my part, which I found fairly offensive when I read that. I struggled to find sources, I kept thinking I had found a better one that might be enough for the page to be approved, but to no avail.. to take up on something else that was said above "The third reference doesn’t t mention the subject." It actually does in paragraph 8, that's why I tried to use it as a reference, I won't be doing any more pages, so rest easy 88.110.98.149 (talk) 04:30, 24 March 2018 (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.