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: delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Martin Clement Creamer[edit]

Probably WP:G11 material. Reads like a resume. Normally, I'd just reject it with some appropriate tag, but has already been submitted, and declined, multiple times, so unlikely one more will do any good.

The decline messages have been edited out. Author is a relentless WP:SPA, who's been around for 9 months but hasn't made a single edit that isn't related to the subject. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:28, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Creamer Media - Martin Clement Creamer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Nuked as WP:CSD#G11 Guy (help!) 22:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)) (Moved down to prevent Legobot from mistaking this for a September 10 nomination. ToThAc (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Delete - Removal of a Reject tag is a blatant case of gaming the system and calls for deletion. The real question is not whether to delete but whether to block the WP:SPA for promotion and as not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Mainspace~~ and allow nomination at WP:AfD. Looks notable. Many quality sources are listed and others exist. If there are all to be analysed for WP:GNG compliance, the only place for doing that is WP:AfD. Obviously not G11-eligible.

On the other hand, advise the interested supporters of WP:THREE. All notable topics can be proven Wikipedia-notable with two to three sources. It is not reasonable to abuse the reviewers time to WP:Reference bomb the page with 29 references. If the best three are not good enough, the next 26 certainly won't help. Which are the best three?

Also advise authors, Yolbotwhit (talk · contribs), to get mainspace editing experience before pushing their sole page interest. Improve existing content related to their interest. See if you can find existing articles that are improved by mentions of this person. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TNT. Too many bad references, even if notable would require a complete restart. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yolbotwhit (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)Thank you for your comments, I do admit that I do not have any or much experience with editing and/or creating Wikipedia articles. I was asked to create a page similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Wolf and used that as a guide. Apologies for adding 29 references, I must have misunderstood that reference make the article 'better'. This article is not for advertising purposes or anything, Martin Creamer, as the article states is a very well known mining journalist in South Africa, 71 years old. Founded Engineering News and Mining Weekly in 1981 with a borrowed desk in a borrowed office. It would be a great honour to have a page like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Wolf for Martin Creamer. I am just not sure how to do it properly and even reading some of the help pages aren't get me anywhere. I have asked for editing and proof reading assistants from journalist etc (not on Wikipedia) and have made changes they suggested. So, I know we are going about this all the wrong way, but can assure you that we mean no harm and don't mean to waste any of the reviewers time and appreciate all efforts and apologize for any inconvenience caused, but would appreciate it if the article does not get deletedYolbotwhit (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I assume from your statement that you were "asked to create a page", and the plural, "we", that you are doing this as a paid assignment or as part of your employment duties. In which case, please see WP:COI and WP:UPE. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have added another copy of this draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Has this draft been relisted, or has its timestamp been changed? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yolbotwhit (talk) 06:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)No, I am not being paid to do this and when I say 'we' I refer to friends I know with 'writing' skills. As I have a bit of knowledge with regards to code this seemed like an interesting project and way to learn, but proving more difficult then I thought. But in the end if it is decided that the page needs to be removed then I suppose there is nothing that can be done about it. Thank you for your time.Yolbotwhit (talk) 06:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yolbotwhit (talk) 06:35, 5 September 2019 (UTC)Also, just one more thing I would like to add is that there are so many articles, obviously important articles, on Wikipedia that has reference, citations and sources used to Martin Creamer and his publications, Mining Weekly, Engineering News and Creamer Media.Yolbotwhit (talk) 06:35, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I find the explanation by User:Yolbotwhit to be incredible (sense 1), not worthy of belief by a rational H. sapiens, but I concur with User:SmokeyJoe that they are wasting their name on one marginal person if they are really here to get edit experience. However, the advice of SmokeyJoe is applicable to a good-faith editor, and stripping the decline and reject tags off a draft article is not usually the behavior of a good-faith editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The stripping of comments off the top of a draft is completely understandable. They belong on the draft’s talk page. Wikipedia generally discovered the merit of talk pages long ago, was it 2002? Everywhere else, comments go on the talk page. Maintenance tags are put on articles, but when dealt with they are removed. No one should ever be criticised for removing a comment put in the wrong place. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:27, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. User:SmokeyJoe is saying that removing a notice that says: "Please do not remove reviewer comments or this notice until the submission is accepted" is understandable. Maybe. I also remember that User:SmokeyJoe was one of the main advocates at AFC of introducing the ability to Reject rather than Decline a draft. So are they saying that they advocated for something useless, because they are saying that Reject notices can be stripped to resubmit? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about a page belong on the talk page.

Stripping maintenance tags when dealt with is standard.

Did the author resubmit without improvement? Show the diff.

Did the author strip the REJECT tag without justification? Show the diff. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, User:SmokeyJoe, you can read the history as well as I can, and you were one of those who asked User:Enterprisey to implement the Reject option, with the understanding that Reject was final, but here is the diff for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Martin_Clement_Creamer&type=revision&diff=911520365&oldid=907486658&diffmode=source

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Robert, thanks. I do dislike being expected to search the history for a REJECT tag removal. Too often, not you or Roy though, MfD nominators make erroneous such claims. I see that it was you, not the MfD nominator (RoySmith), who introduce mention of the REJECT tag. I'd like to suggest to RoySmith that, as removal of the REJECT tag is a good justification to bring a problem draft to MfD, that it really helps MfD reviewers like me if the diff of the REJECT tag removal is included. Similarly, resubmission without improvement is a justification of for nominating at MfD, ideally with a diff showing the resubmission without improvement. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this spam. Guy (help!) 22:39, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I was going to argue, but going to the more reliable looking sources correlates with there being no mention or a mere mention. I think “spam” is harsh, but maybe WP:TNT with reference to WP:THREE is a good outcome here. At AfD, I suspect I would !vote “delete”, and in draftspace I can’t see it being fixed from the current state. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just removed five or six generic top-level urls used as sources, along with Prabook and "classmates.com" used as sources. Very much a piece of bio-spam. I say delete on the basis of lack of notability, bio-spam content and coi involved editor.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Product of a WP:SPA that abused the system as described above. This draft should be uprooted so as not to reward corruption on Wikipedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:25, 11 September 2019 (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.