| Revision as of 21:53, 10 April 2016 editRobert McClenon (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers197,481 edits delete← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:56, 10 April 2016 edit undoLongfamily417 (talk | contribs)108 editsm →Draft:SageTeaNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| *'''Delete''' - I waited to nominate this draft for deletion because I saw marginal evidence that notability could be established for the subject company, and was prepared instead to go to ] to request a block for the author and give a chance for a non-COI editor to adopt this draft and move it through AFC. However, even after repeatedly being asked either to stop resubmitting or to ask for advice at ] or ], the author continued to push to get this draft accepted. Enough is enough. The alternative is a block. If the community doesn't think that notability can be established, then deletion is the less extreme option. (If the community does think that notability can be established, then a block is needed in order to allow someone to move this draft forward without aggressive handling by the author.) ] (]) 21:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' - I waited to nominate this draft for deletion because I saw marginal evidence that notability could be established for the subject company, and was prepared instead to go to ] to request a block for the author and give a chance for a non-COI editor to adopt this draft and move it through AFC. However, even after repeatedly being asked either to stop resubmitting or to ask for advice at ] or ], the author continued to push to get this draft accepted. Enough is enough. The alternative is a block. If the community doesn't think that notability can be established, then deletion is the less extreme option. (If the community does think that notability can be established, then a block is needed in order to allow someone to move this draft forward without aggressive handling by the author.) ] (]) 21:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC) | ||
| I have requested a none COI author. He is not being paid by me, but is familiar with the topic (although to a lesser degree). I am willing to offer comments, if asked. If not, I am ok with however the community wants to view the article. It does have news coverage and a peer reviewed reference. | |||
| ] (]) 21:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:56, 10 April 2016
Draft:SageTea
Non-notable and repeatedly resubmitted by an editor who has admitted being the inventor and CEO. After 9 resubmissions, it's clear they aren't listening to advice, and there's no evidence this will ever be notable. All it's doing is wasting people's time. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC).
- I admit and disclose that I have a conflict of interest, so will take a step back from editing this article. I have given the info to Jonathan Todd. He used to work at SageTea, but doesn't anymore. He is familiar with the topic, although to a lesser degree.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Longfamily417 (talk • contribs)
- You hiring someone to write the page for you is still a conflict of interest and possibly paid editing, and doesn't solve the main problem, which is that it simply isn't notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - I waited to nominate this draft for deletion because I saw marginal evidence that notability could be established for the subject company, and was prepared instead to go to WP:ANI to request a block for the author and give a chance for a non-COI editor to adopt this draft and move it through AFC. However, even after repeatedly being asked either to stop resubmitting or to ask for advice at the Teahouse or the Help Desk, the author continued to push to get this draft accepted. Enough is enough. The alternative is a block. If the community doesn't think that notability can be established, then deletion is the less extreme option. (If the community does think that notability can be established, then a block is needed in order to allow someone to move this draft forward without aggressive handling by the author.) Robert McClenon (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I have requested a none COI author. He is not being paid by me, but is familiar with the topic (although to a lesser degree). I am willing to offer comments, if asked. If not, I am ok with however the community wants to view the article. It does have news coverage and a peer reviewed reference.