Draft:Independent Media Association (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

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]

  The user's talk page is protected. Please advise how I can notify them. Reece at IMA (talk) 11:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Reece at IMA: You should not be editing Wikipedia without logging in, especially when it's obvious that the IP belongs to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  ...and especially when logged-in has a declared paid COI on the userpage, when the IP doesn't! Daniel (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Assume good faith. This wasn't intentional. Reece at IMA (talk) 09:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I did it for you. —Alalch E. 13:17, 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]

  For the record the draft was written by User:Debcrid, it was also edited by User:Reece at IMA (who definitely has a COI). Hut 8.5 08:58, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sure it wasn't intentional. Not everyone is well versed in project space etiquette. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse very 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 8.5 08:58, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted per Robert McClenon and Hut 8.5. Stifle (talk) 09:06, 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]

  UPE? I thought COI was declared? Jclemens (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, that's on me - I've always used the WP:UPE shortcut to link to the relevant section, when it should in effect be PE in this case. Have clarified by amending my comment above (and linking to the full page rather than the section). Thanks for picking this up Jclemens. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 01:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]