Talk:Andcards Suite

Contested deletion
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because it merely cites the sources. The andCards service was featured in popular Korean media: The passages that may look promotional are in fact written in above media (in Korean). Moreover, when writing the article KakaoTalk was used as an example, and it has the same structure and description of features without citing sources.
 * http://www.dailygrid.net/news/articleView.html?idxno=65253
 * http://www.cctvnews.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=74739
 * http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20171218000443
 * If the passages were copied from elsewhere, it is likely a copyright violation. This article needs to have original text based only on what independent reliable sources state about this product.  Currently it reads as a promotional piece.
 * If other articles do not cite any sources, they too likely merit some form of deletion. Other poor articles existing doesn't mean this one gets to as well, see Other stuff exists.  As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, inappropriate pages often get through, and sometimes remain for years.  331dot (talk) 12:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no copyright violation because the passages are translated and rephrased (no substantial linguistic similarity), based on a foreign-language source indicated above and referenced in the article. If it currently reads as a promotional piece, it can be toned down but nevertheless continue to exist and serve as one of the few references to Korean software, which is usually a stub on Wikipedia. Let me tone it down, and add more references before you make decision to delete. Luceigor (talk) 12:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * To clarify, it isn't my decision. But if you need time to work on it, this page should be moved to Draft space where you can work on it with much more time and then submit it for review and feedback before it is placed back in the main space. 331dot (talk) 13:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As demonstrated by verifiable non-primary sources that I included with the article, the topic is notable. As a contributor, I am actively working on improving the tone of the article and it’s encyclopedic value. With my last edits, the article desribes the subject from a neutral point of view, and does not qualify for the NOTFORPROMOTION criterion of speedy deletion. Luceigor (talk) 15:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The page now does little more than state that this service exists, which is still promotional. It doesn't indicate how it meets WP:GNG(notability). In translating the Korean sources with Google, they seem little more than promotional pieces for this service. There isn't independent in depth coverage. 331dot (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)