Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Accredo Business Software Ltd


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete I have also posted a COI tag on the editor's page Jimfbleak - talk to me?  09:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Accredo Business Software Ltd


The article lacks notability and fails to pass WP:GNG and the WP:CORP. The article creator repeatedly disagreeing the reasons given by the reviewers, He/she continues to proclaim the notability exists in these given references, But these articles are not provided with relevant details about this company.

Thereby the creator failed to follow the instructions from the reviewers and demanding the article to be moved to the mainspace, that resulted in repeated submission for review to various of reviewers where the consensus ended in a same verdict as the previous decline. I hereby request you to contest your opinions in regards to this topic either vote to keep or delete. ♔ MONARCH Talk to me  13:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with deletion. The company would have to do some traditional media relations and get some coverage from more objective/lay outlets. Wxidea (talk) 13:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - While the article is well-written and structured, the author is simply not getting the concept of notability.  Onel 5969  TT me 14:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep The page is not an article, it is a draft currently engaged in the AFC process. Notability is only enforcible on articles in mainspace. If the draft author (or any other editor) can provide sufficient sourcing to pass either WP:CORP or WP:GNG then every reasonable opportunity to do so should be afforded to the author (per WP:AGF). While in draft-space the existence of the page is no threat to the integrity or quality of the encyclopedia. If the author (or any other editor) ultimately fails to demonstrate notability and consequently abandons the effort, the draft will in due course be subject to G13 speedy deletion. In short, I don't think the nominator has made a compelling case to short-cut the normal routine fate of failed drafts, if it does eventually fail. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi. If your sole basis for keep is the bureaucratic procedure that it's still a draft, I think that's a weak reason. It would be a waste of time to accept this temporarily, just to then turn around and delete it. I think the editor proposing rejection was trying to avoid raising the hope and annoying the original author, and also bringing a close to this obvious disconnect where the author is convinced that he's met the notability guidelines, and multiple editor disagree. I should add that I don't know the absolute procedure, but it seems to me that EIGHT rejections in the AfC process is more votes than many AfD articles ever get. Can you point me to the Wikipedia guideline that AfC should not be deleted, but just live in perpetual submission/rejection? How does the community of editor convey more strongly to an author that they think can article should not be created at this time? Wxidea (talk) 03:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per Wxidea's explanation above that the submitter has already been afforded more than sufficient opportunity to correct the draft's deficiencies but has chosen not to respond apropriately by repeatedly resubmitting without improvement. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

AUTHOR COMMENT: "I hereby request you to contest your opinions in regards to this topic either vote to keep or delete." Suddenly I have been transported back to the time of the Inquisition! I guess coming from a 'Monarch' that's what I should expect. :) On a more real note, I have once again re-read your Notability rules, in particular Independence of Sources and Depth of Coverage rules. The submission meets these criteria. Just because the references aren't daily newspapers, doesn't mean they are not independent or objective. NBR, Reseller News, NZ Business and ARN are independent, objective news publications. They have editors and journalists, and walls between editorial and advertising. Please tell me in what they are not objective? I will continue to work on the submission in the meantime to see if I can add more sources. I respectfully ask you to keep the article in draft-space for the time being.Breton66 (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * – I have explained why your article was put up for deletion debate. As the references, you have given are not relevant contents, Despite the site's notability, The references don't mention significant details about this company. You're trying torture every reviewer by repeatedly submitting this article for review, which honestly won't change ANY reviewers opinion once you have got into a disagreement with other reviewers. I have carefully done a research before putting this article deletion debate, But I have not found significant claim or notably relating this topic. Any draft space that doesn't minimum criteria of WP:GNG or WP:NOTABILITY will fall under WP:G13 which will result in abandonment of draftspace, If you are accused of promoting this company then this article will fall under speedy deletion criteria WP:G11, Therefore, I decided not to put for speedy deletion and because i wanted to hear more opinions from prior reviewers at least, The fate of this article may be decided by total voters and the administrator will take appropriate action based on outcome of this debate. ♔ MONARCH Talk to me  22:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.