Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:CNet Training

 __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. ‑Scottywong | [soliloquize] || 16:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft:CNet Training

 * – (View MfD)

This article has been in draft space for a year now, and it has been declined several times at AfC without the underlying issues being resolved. I don't believe this company is sufficiently notable as its claims for notability are non-notable awards and association with notable organisations from which notability is not derived. Due to the length of time it's been in draftspace and the number of AfC declines I am listing it at MfD Pi (Talk to me!)  22:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It is plausibly notable, although probably doesn't meet WP:CORP and wouldn’t pass AfD. Plausibly notable is why no reviewer REJECTs it?  Probably wouldn't survive AfD is why no reviewer accepts it.  Has it been tendentiously resubmitted?  If not, it is not MfD business.
 * The author,, is a WP:SPA. Not a single edit to any other page.  So we are quick to assume WP:UPE.  He never talks, not beyond bland edit summaries.  However, no editor talks to him.  Perhaps this is because it is probably pointless.  Do we think he is a throwaway WP:SOCK?  I would bet on it.  If not, if RobertParker4421 is genuinely interested in contributing to Wikipedia, I advise him to get editing experience on existing articles.  WP:SPAs writing promotional company articles should have more restrictions, I believe.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep No particular or valid reason to delete. The company might well be notable, as said above, although the current refs don't clearly establish that. Plausible draft should not be deleted just because they haven't been accepted. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:11, 27 June 2020 (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.