Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:InstallAware Software

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. The previous MfD result notwithstanding, participants in the current discussion agreed almost unanimously that preserving the old draft in this way was inappropriate. RL0919 (talk) 18:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:InstallAware Software

I ran across this page from a thread at WP:AN, and thought (apparently along with a few others) that this page should be deleted. It was correctly pointed out that MFD thisaway. So I'm restating my WP:AN comment below, as a deletion rationale. Rather than copy/paste everyone else's comment, I'll leave a pointer to that discussion here, and a pointer to this discussion there, and people can repeat their comment here if they want.

Rationale: "I'm not thrilled that we're intentionally, permanently, publicly shaming the company in project space; pretending that this is in the service of helping other companies avoid the same problem is a cover story that should be beneath us. Why lower ourselves to their level? Deleting outright would be better. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)" [1][reply]

The WP:AN thread: [2]

I'm slightly unfamiliar with MFD ettiquette; I assume I should ping everyone who commented at the first MFD? Would pinging everyone who commented at the ANI thread be canvassing? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Forgot to add: First MFD, which resulted in moving this to WP space, is here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:InstallAware Software. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not canvassing to ping the editors at the previous MFD, so I'll do that now: User:Feminist, User:DGG, User:Salvidrim, User:Train2104, User:Premeditated Chaos. I'll wait for some feedback about pinging the editors at the AN thread. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I was part of the first MfD which led to this result, but I also do not agree exactly with the current situation. My proposal was: "I think there needs to be a short essay at WP:InstallAware Software describing its significance (add to essays listed at NCORP), then the draftspace title redirected and FPP'ed (the essay can link to the latest diff)." I still think we should blank/archive/etc. and write a short NCORP blurb linking to the last diff of the draft. I think hiding the draft revisions from non-admins (aka deleting) is not "better" than using it instructionally as a salient example of how not to draft a company article, but I can see the arguments and this isn't a hill I wish to die upon. :) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 17:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, pretty much all of the original MfD commenters agreed with blanking/redir-to-essay, so if that's what is sought (as I gather from the AN thread, "avoid draftshaming IAS in perpetuity so opennly"), I don't think a new MfD is stricly necessary. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 17:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course a new MFD is necessary - the proposal is to delete it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to present this as "an essay on how not to draft your company article" is petty. That box should be removed, as should the similar sentence in the "historical reference" box. I'm less sympathetic to removing the entire page - if this were solely or even primarily a case of "Ha ha ha, let's all point and laugh at these comically-incompetent spammers!" that'd be one thing; but letting people see the unedited draft as it was when this company intentionally, permanently, publically (attempted to) shame us with their press release strikes me as a measured, neutral, and factual response. It doesn't even link to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InstallAware or the deletion logs at InstallAware and InstallAware Software. —Cryptic 17:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not convinced that this page is a "a measured, neutral, and factual response", it's a pillory that probably won't be read by anyone anyway so totally ineffective on top of being meanspirited. If there are actually usable & independent sources about this "controversy" we might want a InstallAware Software Wikipedia article controversy, but I am not seeing them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whatever any company or spammer does, we should be above this sort of response. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just add that where it says "This page is an essay on how not to draft your company article" - no it isn't. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:12, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Jo-Jo. This amounts to pointing at a particular editor as a "bad example", which doesn't foster a collaborative environment. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sheesh. Paul August ☎ 21:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as inappropriate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; crud, nothing like this should be allowed to be submitted so many times. Home Lander (talk) 23:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In this case, the result of the previous MFD, preserving this as a bad example, was almost as wrong as the original article. Just send this to the bit bucket or to dev/null. It may be printed and fed to the goats, but do not feed it to the monster under the bed. (The monster under the bed is probably a troll, and trolls should not be fed.) Delete. Delete. Delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the argument made by someone at AN that this is at least to some extent, giving the spammers what they were after (a write-up on Wikipedia, no matter how obscurely placed) is not without merit. And I agree with Robert: DFTT does apply. John from Idegon (talk) 02:01, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page is essentially an ad for their software. CoolSkittle (talk) 03:38, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone explain what happened at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:InstallAware Software? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:24, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Floquenbeam, Boing! said Zebedee, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and 78.26. As a side note, referring to this company as "trolls" is completely inappropriate. Businesses unfamiliar with and/or frustrated by Wikipedia's seemingly arcane and arbitrary notability requirements and difficult-to-navigate processes should not be subject to mockery and gawking. There are better ways to educate people about WP:N than by showcasing someone's failures. It is WP:TACKY to bite (or mock) the newcomers. 28bytes (talk) 08:22, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Run of the mill attempt to post a spammy article. Something like this might be useful for training purposes (e.g., to teach article for creation participants, new page patrollers and new admins how to recognise spam articles), but I agree that a fictitious example would be better. Nick-D (talk) 09:39, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems like Wikipedia unnecessarily picking a fight with a company that didn't understand Wikipedia's policies, and making fun of them for it. I feel like if an article was submitted to AFC and declined 11 times in a row these days, we'd be looking to delete it as soon as possible, and potentially even consider banning the user as a "clearly promotional or advertising-only" account. No way would we consider archiving it for "future reference". – numbermaniac 13:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - User:28bytes - I did not mean that the company or the company's personnel are trolls. The whole idea of preserving something as a bad example is trollish, maybe not intentionally so. Maybe it is the editors who preserved this draft who were unintentionally trollish. The company's flacks are more likely fools than trolls. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:21, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For all the reasons cited above. And a fictitious example would be better. Isn't it possible for the company name to be "perma-banned" or something similar? Don't we have words that aren't allowed on WP's pages or websites that are blacklisted/whitelisted?... Shearonink (talk) 16:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't know what has happened here, but the end result is just useless crud. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 11:31, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the motive for keeping thispage is entirely improper. If we want to present a bad example--and there might be a point in that--we should prepare a fictiitious one. It is not morally wrong for a company to want to get an article on WP, and it is inappropriate to call them out on it. DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 24 November 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.