Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Patent Marketing
Policy states unambiguously that an organization is notable |"if it has been the subject of '''significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject'''" (emphasis in original). World Patent Marketing has been the subject of such coverage; see https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/before-he-led-the-justice-department-matthew-g-whitaker-promoted-company-accused-of-deceiving-clients/2018/11/08/f46e6db8-e380-11e8-ab2c-b31dcd53ca6b_story.html ''Washington Post'', https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/he-was-yelling-whitaker-pushed-back-against-early-fraud-complaints-about-company-he-advised/2018/11/14/53e5cbc6-e78f-11e8-a939-9469f1166f9d_story.html ''WaPo'' again, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/08/us/politics/whitaker-trump-attorney-general.html ''New York Times'', https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/30/us/politics/matthew-whitaker-ftc-world-patent-marketing.html ''New York Times'' again, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-30/ftc-emails-show-whitaker-fielded-gripes-on-miami-firm Bloomberg, https://www.foxnews.com/politics/whitaker-said-to-angrily-demand-website-remove-posts-about-patent-firm Fox News, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/09/matthew-whitaker-acting-attorney-general-wpm-scam ''The Guardian'', https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/11/matthew-whitaker-world-patent-marketing-scam ''Vanity Fair'', https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/world-patent-marketing-scam-took-millions-of-dollars-from-inventors-9605870 ''Miami New Times'', etc. This one isn't even close, and to claim as the nominator does that it "unequivocally fails"  shows&mdash;to be charitable&mdash;a complete lack of familiarity with relevant policy.{{pb}}The nomination lists a |context-free alphabet soup of other policies. Citing  suggests a deep lack of understanding of that policy&mdash;and constitutes a completely unsupported aspersion against the creators and editors of the article, as well as a massive and inappropriate assumption of bad faith. Bizarrely,  is cited as a reason to delete, when that policy actually states that an article spun out of a BLP |"is not necessarily an attack page, even if the content in question reflects negatively upon its subject". In other words, the cited policy directly contradicts the point the nominator is using it to advance.{{pb}}Moving the article to draftspace is inappropriate. Draftspace is intended to develop articles that don't yet meet notability or other criteria, but this article is already amply sourced and comprehensive. It can of course be improved, and issues of weight can be hashed out, but in that regard it is no different from hundreds of thousands of other mainspace articles. Policy states that draftifying |"is '''not''' intended as a backdoor route to deletion", but that seems to be exactly how it's being employed here.{{pb}}As best I can tell, the underlying complaint seems to be that the article reflects negatively on a Trump-Administration figure. First of all, an article describing a scam that bilked people out of large amounts of money will&mdash;if neutrally written&mdash;sound "negative", because most people perceive scamming people out of money negatively. I don't see any actual BLP violations identified or even posited, just |vague waves at irrelevant policies and . The kindest explanation for this nomination and the support for deleting or hiding an article that clearly meets notability criteria is that there's been a collective, hopefully temporary, collapse of competence on the part of several experienced editors. I mean, this borders on a disruptive AfD nomination, given how patently obvious it is that this subject meets 
— User:MastCell, 18:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:ORG||WP:ORG||WP:VAGUEWAVE||WP:ATTACKPAGE||WP:NEGATIVESPIN||WP:NEGATIVESPIN||WP:DRAFTIFY||WP:VAGUEWAVE||WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:ORG (Wikipedia:Notability)