- Draft:NUUP (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Administrator failed to see Talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manivannan184 (talk • contribs)
- Endorse deletion I believe RHaworth was well within his rights to speedy delete this per WP:CSD#G11. Multiple draft reviewers had told you it was an inappropriate piece of writing, but you ignored their advice and continually hit "submit". For the benefit of non-admins, the talk page text is as follows : "This page is not unambiguously promotional, because it is an initiative from government initiative NUUP (National unified USSD payment) service. Do not delete, I can update the page further only after successful review, since i don't waste time on content which is not reviewed properly." Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Answering "Multiple draft reviewers had told you it was an inappropriate piece of writing" - Multiple draft reviewers told me how to enhance the page not about G11, see the review comments properly speedy deleters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manivannan184 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. I might have just let this sit in draft space pending its inevitable G13 deletion, but this is a justifiable deletion under G11. ~ Rob13Talk 14:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, how to prove it is not promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manivannan184 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is an Initiative or Service by Government of India. It is about the features and how it works. Do Not have any promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manivannan184 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Trout all around. On the one hand, yeah, this doesn't sound like an article we need, but it's not (IHMO) so blatantly promotional that WP:G11 applied. And, especially to a draft. The whole point of draft space is to incubate articles which aren't ready for mainspace yet. It's got to be really bad to warrant speedying something in draftspace. On the other hand, just continuing to hit the submit button in the hopes the next person to review it sees things differently isn't useful. Read the reviews and try to understand what people are objecting to. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion it reads like text from a brochure, with bulleted lists of things like "Round the clock availability (functional even on holidays)." No attempt was made to make it even slightly resemble an encyclopedia article. In addition, the service in question doesn't appear encyclopedically notable, so trying to fix it would just be a waste of time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we get a temp undelete please? In this case, the actual text is relevant (and I don't think cached by Google). Hobit (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I have temporarily undeleted the draft for review. Mackensen (talk) 02:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this isn't an ideal speedy case. A) It's certainly overly promotional but also fixable. B) It's a draft C) the topic is likely notable. C doesn't really matter for a G11 and technically B) doesn't either, but realisitially we expect draft articles to have problems and don't generally speedy them if they are recoverable. This topic certainly is and the current draft can be easily fixed to deal with the promotionalism. overturn speedy and allow as a draft. Hobit (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and restore to draft. I agree with Hobit's reasoning here. It is a fixable advertising case, and it was in draft space. None of the reviewers had mentioned promotional content, so I'm less sympathetic to the argument that its been reviewed multiple times. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not just promotionalism, it's copyvio promotionalism pasted together from various bits of the company's marketing material. All of the first revision is from [1], for example. —Cryptic 02:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted but allow recreation and move of new page Draft:NUUP Services to mainspace. Because Draft:NUUP is a copyright violation (as Cryptic has shown above), it should remain deleted.
But I agree with the "Overturn" editors commenting here that it did not meet the speedy deletion criterion "G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion", which says: This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion. I do not believe the article would need to be "fundamentally rewritten".Furthermore, I agree with RoySmith that "It's got to be really bad to warrant speedying something in draftspace" and with Hobit that "realisitially we expect draft articles to have problems and don't generally speedy them if they are recoverable". The opening poster, Manivannan184 (talk · contribs), has created a new draft at Draft:NUUP Services. It contains reliable sources like http://www.financialexpress.com/money/nuup-dial-99-and-make-easy-payments-without-using-internet-by-any-featured-phone-through-a-new-ussd-based-technology/469515/ and http://tech.firstpost.com/news-analysis/bhim-heres-your-guide-to-cashless-transactions-using-nuup-on-ios-and-feature-phones-355798.html. The new draft is less promotional and does not contain any copyright violations, so I recommend moving that page to mainspace. Cunard (talk) 10:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion and No Move the new Draft to mainspace yet, because the Draft still has no signs of convincing acceptance, not only because the URls are not neatly formatted, but because it still needs additional work thus not yet acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have created new draft Draft:NUUP_Services, with live advice from Wiki experts. So i request keep Draft:NUUP deleted and help in moving Draft:NUUP_Services to main article.
Few points to add
- if you think it is promotional on seeing citation of SBI and ICICI, I can give you explanantion. SBI and ICICI are public and private banks in India. They are showing how their customers can use NUUP_Services. NUUP is something like NEFT, IMPS, RTGS (different types of transaction mechanisms). So bank websites shows how the services work, as it is new to India.
- in mentioned NEFT, IMPS pages. are you seeing any convincing citations? because these are mode of transaction, which does not have articles in news paper, as much you expected.
- Could I request for immediate intervention in Draft:NUUP_Services, as this technology is national wide implementation and has no wiki main article for users to look into.
Manivannan184 (talk) 06:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn G11, delete G7 - in article space, the speedy would already be fairly disputable. So in Draft:, hell no. While I never really understood why draft space is necessary when there are user subpages, the threshold for WP:G11 is certainly higher there. (And G7 per the above comment.) TigraanClick here to contact me 17:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Manivannan184: None seems to have told that to you, but if you read carefully WP:PROMO, it says
Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so. "It is a government-backed initiative, thus the article is non-promotional" is therefore an incorrect reasoning. TigraanClick here to contact me 17:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
|