Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:CMIA Capital Partners Pte Ltd

 __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:  no consensus, default to keep (WP:NOCONSENSUS). (non-admin closure) —  Godsy (TALK CONT ) 00:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Draft:CMIA Capital Partners Pte Ltd

 * North America1000 13:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * North America1000 06:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * North America1000 06:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

No serious changes after 1 review which listed our main policy, any changes were simply cosmetics rewording or changing a few words, that alone is not what our policies classify as notability; all PR information and sources largely consist of what's in the Draft, therefore any changes are not convincing. User shows clear signs of being an employee or similar help, given the motivated PR-focus. SwisterTwister  talk  04:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. I don't see evidence that they are notable, but it would not be impossible. It is premature to list at MfD on only the first re-submission from Draft space. I think we usually wait for a least three tries.  DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait until at least three cycles? So new contributors are unashameably being sent round and round in circles, to keep junk and work out of mainspace, until they give up and go away?  It looks like a WP:CORP failure, but evaluating notability on a draft is a lot of work, because notability depends on sources that exist, not the sources so far listed or the current state of the article.  My conclusion and solution:  Newcomers should not be writing new articles, they should be first required to improve something, something that includes coverage of their topic in other articles.  WP:ACTRIAL in fact.  WP:AfC is a massive disservice.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:21, 23 March 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.