Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Avaamo

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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:  Keep. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Avaamo


This article appears to be an advertisement for the subject. The article does not show notability, does not have good solid references or citations. CatSleepingOnTheKeyboard 03:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Yup definitely. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. While I agree that this is weak as written, and I would have rejected it as not good enough yet if I were actually doing an AFC review on it, we don't immediately rush new AFC drafts out the door just because they're not ready for an articlespace promotion right off the bat — we have to give the creators a chance to at least try to improve the article, and that's especially true of a draft which still has an active "review waiting" template on it. It's true that this draft does need further improvement before it could actually get the mainspace bump, but neither its tone nor its sourcing are so egregiously awful that kiboshing it right away would be the appropriate solution. Rather, the submitter should be given time and feedback to try to improve it — except in highly rarefied cases of extremely problematic content (a standard which hasn't been met here), an AFC draft only becomes eligible for deletion if (a) it's still in sorry shape six months after creation, or (b) the creator is being highly tendentious about it, such as resubmitting it eight or nine or ten times without even trying to address the reviewers' concerns at all. Neither of those are true here yet, however. No prejudice against renomination in August if this is still in sorry shape, but this does not yet meet any of the conditions that would allow it to get deleted now. Bearcat (talk) 14:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Simply because its policy! Although the subject of this article has potential to claim significance (as it is still within the start-up phase of a company and is yet to meet notability IRL), right now it is simply WP:TOOSOON. The reason it is bound to gain coverage and have articles in newspapers is because it has gained funding from Venture Capitalists or has announced new features & their launches (which is simply notoriety) - but not yet meaningfully contributed towards any significant act to pass the WP:CORPDEPTH. Thanks. TopCipher (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Notability is not a deletion criterion in draftspace — because draftspace is meant for submissions by new editors who aren't actually familiar with how Wikipedia works and what we require, it is entirely possible for a topic to be more notable than the draft actually shows in its current form. Unless a page has extreme content problems, significantly worse than any of the problems here, we delete drafts only for abandonment or tendentiousness, not for simply being inadequate at the time of its first AFC review. Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'm actually all for the existence of such articles; just that I saw this discussion going on for this particular 'subject', thought to share my 2 cents; I suppose since I'm relatively a new user myself, I may have taken notability and verifiability over reviewing drafts a bit too seriously. I do however agree with your initial assessment too i.e. these are indeed just drafts and deserve more open intervention and not (or should not?) be deleted - just that in this case, its a bit too speculative; WP:TOOSOON. Thanks. TopCipher (talk) 17:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per Bearcat and WP:NMFD. Some of the references are not unreasonable. I don't find the tone to be promotional either. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 08:26, 10 April 2017 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.