Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Boutir

 __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 &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 08:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Boutir


Clear company-motivated advertisement as nothing has significantly changed in 2 reviews, the PR advertised information and sources are still existing, and there's been no acknowledgements of the policies accompanied with the reviews; sources are simply company-based or republished press releases, notices, their own webpages, etc. SwisterTwister   talk  06:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep and allow some time for the main contributor, who is new to Wikipedia, to make more improvements. After the draft was AfC declined as reading like an advertisement on 17 February 2017, the author made proactive efforts to address the matter. After the second AfC decline on 25 February 2017, the author again made more efforts to address the matter. See the page's Revision history for the chronology. I view this instance as a bitey nomination, and the nominator did not even bother to notify the page's creator. I have done so (diff). North America1000 19:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Our policies explicitly state that articles are not indefinite places for improvements whenever someone feels like it, thus this page should be improved now, as even WP:DEADLINE would not apply here considering it's a clear business-made advertisement, something of which any main policy such as WP:NOT, supports deletion because it's a non-negotiable violation. Our simplest standards themselves show "articles must be improved to met Wikipedia standards and policies", a fitting case here. SwisterTwister   talk  03:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I am sorry that I don't exactly get all the points for changes that I need to make...


 * The comment I firstly received is this:


 * "the information is advert-like and the sources are only announcements, profiles, mentions, company quotes and similar; the awards are all PR-focused ones and they're not significant for notability. SwisterTwister talk 01:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)"


 * So to me it seems the problems are:
 * 1. information is advert-like
 * 2. a lot of sources are from company's announcement
 * 3. awards are PR-focused
 * 4. awards are not significant for notability


 * For point 1, I amended some wordings to try to make it neutral. I think I have never described anything else other than facts or praise the company as anything extraordinary, I really don't understand why it is still seen as ad...


 * For point 2, I added quite some citations that are not from the company but from its collaborators or media. From the comment that I just received now, it seems that even citations from media are not accepted... Is that other than books, no citations from anything else is accepted? Or is that because the citations are from Asian local media but not Western media, that's why they are not accepted? There are 57 citations in this article and there are 5 citations from the company's news. And these 5 citations are about information such as what the company does and how many users they have, citing them seems very reasonable to me... Are they really a lot compared to all the citations I put down? If it is true, what should be the optimum ratio?


 * Similar question comes to point 3 and point 4 too, when the comment is "awards are PR-focused", so I thought those PR awards which are not usually related to a tech company were the ones causing problems. So I deleted all of them. For the rest, AngelHack is a global hackathon, the rest are awards given by local government and Google's local program, they are well recognised regionally, why are they not accepted?


 * For my second resubmission, it was still declined and there was no particular comment but restate the standard notice... I checked through the page several times and guessed that it might be the external links, so I removed all of them and resubmit...


 * Then this entry is now nominated for deletion... I thought I was encouraged to make improvements...


 * Anyway, now I am really lost on what I should do next... It would be really gracious, helpful and magnanimous if there are some more detailed comments for how I can improve the entry. I am very willing to make changes if I know what I should improve. I am really sorry for causing all the troubles... which I didn't expect... really sorry... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquarc (talk • contribs) 04:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep We delete drafts unimproved after six months; by contrast, this draft has only been around a month, the editor is actively working to make it meet guidelines, and has found a great number of press citations. I don't see why we'd cut off that process now. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:33, 28 February 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.