Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Chloe + Isabel

 __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: delete. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Chloe + Isabel

 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Deleted before as spam and thrice reviewed for there to only exist spam once again, therefore showing there's no fundamental understanding and that's common given it's company-initiated spam. SwisterTwister  talk  18:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep This is not overtly promotional, it is questionably notable but there is no reason the creator should not be allowed to attempt to work on it in draft space. It hasn't been disruptive and they've actively sought assistance from experienced editors to make it better. The first iteration was pretty promotional, however this one in no way qualifies as blatant spam. There is nothing here that violates any given policy. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  18:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Also adding that there seems to be a misconception here that only the creator of the draft could possibly ever work (or want to) on a draft. Not the case. I've never heard of it until now and I'm finding some rather significant write ups in reliable sources, such as People and the Wall Street Journal and several features in celebrity fashion reviews and columns. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  19:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep, it was speedied as G11, but the deleting admin reversed their decision. This draft appears to be a legitimate attempt at an article by a COI author who is attempting very much to comply with our policies. We need to stop biting them and let them have a chance to improve their article. This is absurd. If this is the attitude we give people who properly disclose their COI and make fair attempts to create an article, it's no wonder we have a massive problem with UPE. It's possible it's not a notable topic, but the draft's author hasn't been given a chance to establish it one way or another. There are secondary, reliable sources in the article that support at least some of the content in the article. The references are placed properly in most cases. There is no refbombing. The draft is formatted fairly well. There are no external links whatsoever in the article. Yes, it is somewhat promotional of the subject, but it's by far one of the better COI draft attempts I've seen, there no problem that a few minutes of care and attention wouldn't solve. Waggie (talk) 18:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't know if the company is notable (yet), but this was one of the pages where I was working towards helping the creator make it less promotional; unfortunately it fell through the cracks and I forgot about it until now. Primefac (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep my !vote would be different if this were an article, as it appears non-notable. This, however, is what the draft space is for.  Creator appears to be making a good-faith effort to do things the "right" way.  Current language is not irredeemably promotional, my only quibble is with "The company's goal was to create a new generation of female entrepreneurs", which is slanted, but again this can be addressed.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 19:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - The three fundamental policies in which I cite here are WP:What Wikipedia is not, and WP:Indiscriminate and WP:Deletion policy, both of which allow deletion and especially when changes were made and thus unsatisfactory; that immediately suggests deletion and starting anew would help. Also, the 2 sources above cite clear company-supplied information, therefore unacceptable for WP:ORGIND which says indiscriminate coverage is unconvincing, see "How the company crafts it own sales model....The company says", "She turned down what once her dream job", etc. all primary information. When there is a clear questionability of Notability and therefore existing promo, deletion is the policy-based solution, not sugarcoating it. We shouldn't and can't accept news without vigilantly seeing if it was PR-based which it is here. SwisterTwister   talk  20:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Promotional. KMF (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm all for getting rid of promotional crap that isn't going anywhere, but this draft has come a LONG way since it's inception, and is still being actively improved. It's becoming less and less promotional with every edit. Why vote delete? Waggie (talk) 23:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep why are we having to do this? The draftspace was created so things like this can be worked on until either a) it is sufficient for inclusion in the mainspace or b) it's clear that it'll never be sufficient for inclusion. All of this is really trying my patience -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 12:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Declined spam, what's the point of keeping it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, since you ask, because it's being actively improved and it might be a notable topic? Waggie (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

applies. Last 2 sources are clear Indiscriminate blogs. Unless additional improvements can be made, this is simply not substantially different from what we consider actual Notability inside and out. Considering the only sections in here are "History" and "Partnerships", policies WP:Not a webhost and WP:Promo, apply and are non-negotiable against support notability guidelines''. SwisterTwister  talk  17:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Nominator's analysis - In the time since initiation, only 2 of the current press releases sources have been removed therefore simply because of few other information parts were removed can't be taken into account of satisfying our policies. From the beginning, Notability has not been confirmed and this is including 3 separate declines. Since the one time of changes made, no others have been made. Even with the NYT, CBS or CNBC, the information weighed inside is WP:Indiscriminate coverage similar to company press releases. The first source is the a guide, therefore WP:Not guide
 * You don't seem to understand what a guideline is. A guideline is not a policy, so the notion that it's 'non-negotiable' is patently ridiculous. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  18:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * To quote from our Policies page: "Policies are standards that all users should normally follow, and guidelines are generally meant to be best practices for following those standards in specific contexts" Policies clearly have a maintained higher priority than guidelines. SwisterTwister   talk  18:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You know what? Fine. You win. It's clear there is no interest in anything but wiki-litigating good faith editors and being bitey, so delete away. I've removed myself from the project since it's clearly not anything more than a secondary main space for perfection only. Enjoy AFC. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  18:24, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No one is claiming this draft is ready for mainspace. Notability certainly has not been established, and the sources used are indeed not reliable. However, treating draft articles the same as articles in mainspace is incorrect.  Draft is where people are allowed to build articles, where new editors learn how to properly create and source articles, and where COI editors are allowed to present proposals to a broader, presumably neutral audience.  As long as an editor is making good faith effort to improve their draft, it should not be deleted.  How else are they to learn?  I support deletions of drafts that are unambiguously promotional (usually written in first-person, or containing direct offers of sales), and I support deletions of drafts where the submitting editor makes no effort to improve the referencing or revise the tone after multiple, similar rejections.  This is not the case here.  Regarding the policy WP:NOTHOSTING, this is not a personal web page, it is not file storage, it is not a dating service, memorial, or other item which would appear in the "Personals" section of a newspaper.  It is not unrelated to the purposes of Wikipedia, because it is clearly an attempt to create an encyclopedia article.  Of course WP:PROMO applies, it is among the reasons no established editor has made any sort of claim that it should be included in the mainspace as an encyclopedia article.  So we are back to best practices here, in this case the guideline WP:BITE, because the draft space was created to incubate potential new articles, even though most of them will never see "birth".   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 18:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 21:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * How very sage of you, . Primefac (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Why thank you Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 21:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I would like to see some actual discussion over the probability that this wil lever be a viable article. Most of the comments above do not seem very helpful in figuring that out.  DGG ( talk ) 03:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, there are references from PEOPLE, NY Times, CNBC, CBS, and Fortune. While I'm not finding much in the way of "written in 2017" articles, notability doesn't have to be lasting to be demonstrated at some point in time, nor does it have to be demonstrated in an MFD. I will agree that none of the references individually are spectacular, but it does show that there is interest from a wide range of media outlets (and times) about this company. Primefac (talk) 03:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Analysis of sources - I took some time earlier today to analyze the sources closely again: See
 * Waterbury was hustling to pay for her first year of college at Santa Clara University in California. She raked in a whopping $30,000 in one summer, enough to fund her first year of school. Waterbury was hustling to pay for her first year of college at Santa Clara University in California. She raked in a whopping $30,000 in one summer, enough to fund her first year of school
 * Waterbury took out loans, but they weren t enough to cover costs. She supplemented what she had by selling $30,000 worth of CutCo knives door-to-door in around four months. After studying business, she spent 15 years rising in the ranks in corporate jewelry buying, working with mass-market brands like Old Navy and luxury designers like Cartier and Tiffany.
 * Waterbury s merchandisers (who are primarily women under 35) are given extensive sales and marketing training and real-time analytics to track their progress.
 * Waterbury s merchandisers (who are primarily women under 35) are given extensive sales and marketing training and real-time analytics to track their progress. (Followed by interview)
 * that Chloe & Isabel’s army of contributors stands to make a lot of money in the arrangement by selling their jewelry to their networks of friends and followers. The company pays a 30% commission on sales of its jewelry; its sellers make anywhere from $30 per hour of work to $300 an hour. One new seller took home $4,000 on five hours of work in her first month, says CEO and founder Chantal Waterbury. (That’s atypical, but shows how quickly some people are able to turn their social media savvy into cash.) It’s the Tupperware party model, adapted for the social media age. hloe & Isabel has invested considerable resources into teaching its 3,500 members the ways of branding, product photography, social media, and storytelling. It grooms them to be mini-entrepreneurs within the Chloe & Isabel framework.
 * Company starts by vetting its users from the 3,000-plus applications it receives each month, accepting around 20% of applicants. Chloe & Isabel produces a robust set of training tools, from video and articles to quizzes and tutorials, to teach the sellers about everything from marketing best practices and analytics to the best Instagram filters, fonts, and color pallets to use on photos. Without revealing specifics, Chloe & Isabel said it experienced 250% growth year-over-year in revenue in 2013 and is on track to grow by 35o% this year. The company raised $18 million in venture funds from General Catalyst Partners, First Round Capital, and others, and has 75 employees. Chloe + Isabel is extending its model category. Besides, the sellers are increasingly finding success with in-person pop-up shops in partnership with local businesses. Waterbury says this gives the brand a physical presence (3,500 times over) without the overhead of brick-and-mortar retail. But even that can be repurposed for the digital world, as customers will see when the company releases a mobile app in the coming weeks.
 * None of this would satisfy WP:ORGIND and WP:CORP which says: No press releases, press kits, or similar works, advertising and marketing materials by, about, or on behalf of the organization, any material written or published by the organization, directly or indirectly; other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people, any material written by the organization, its members, or sources closely associated with it.}} The fact multiple of the sources clearly label it as either an interview or a self-focused page, none of that satisfies the applicable guidelines, worse when GNG says significant independent coverage. SwisterT'''wister   talk  04:07, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I took the liberty of actually breaking up that huge wall of green text, if only to make it readable. Didn't change any content. Primefac (talk) 04:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per . &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  10:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as corporate SPAM. We see tons of this at AfC. SwisterTwister knows all about this. Legacypac (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As a note, I want to make it clear what our Foundation Terms of Use say and that specific Foundation Policy never mentions that a mere notice may be enough and, even if it were, it wouldn't matter given it allows any unacceptable content removed. Also, even if there were chances of a suitable article, it wouldn't matter if there has been repeated violations of advertising against our Terms of Use, that alone is severely outweighable than guidelines. [[User:SwisterTwister| SwisterTwister] talk  22:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: MfD isn't about notability at all, except in as it applies to an article's potential for notability. MfD is also not about COI (disclosed or not).
 * SwisterTwister has made repeated accusations that Lauren at Chloe + Isabel has violated the Terms of Use in several ways, yet strangely the author isn't blocked, so either 1) an admin hasn't gotten 'round to it, or 2) there aren't any TOU violations. Given the number of admins (and an ArbCom member) that have visited this MfD, I think we can safely assume it's the latter and that any further accusations of TOU violations need to stop immediately as it's really getting to be WP:NPA territory (if not already)., would you care to weigh in on this aspect?
 * The draft is not overly promotional, even of some of the sources are lackluster. It has been improved upon substantially since it's inception as a draft. I agree it could use more improvement and better sources. I'm not arguing that it be accepted into mainspace at this time.
 * Also, address your question directly, DGG, I will echo : The undisputed fact that there is at least some discussion in reliable sources quite clearly shows the potential for notability. I'm not an inclusionist by any means, but this draft does not even remotely meet the criteria for deletion at MfD. Waggie (talk) 03:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * there is no sharp definition of potential for notability. (to clarify. Potential for notability in the sense applicable here refers to current potential if sources were properly investigated and a high quality article written not to what the subject might do some day in the future, which is covered by CRYSTAL. Every living person or active organization has som e future potential for doing something that would bring notability)  There are various degrees of likelihood for it, and if the likelihood is low enough, the draft does not belong here.  As I've said before, librarians and in particular  college librarians have as a central skill the ability to estimate this for term papers, but anyone with experience over time in Wikipedia can see what topics eventually do and do not yield satisfactory articles. It has to be more than a vague hope. A vague hope includes absolutely everything. It has to be a realistic chance. It pretty much amounts to the same thing as the English use of the word notability, not the specialized wikipedia term of art, which operationally means nothing more that the likelihood that an afd will keep  the article. And, as it happens, for AfC, that's explicitly the standard--the likelihood that AfD will keep the article. We expect something  like 60 to 80% chance for passing an AfC, though most reviewers use a higher level. For keeping it as a draft, obviously a lower standard will do. but I'd say somewhere in the range of at least 20%. Not 1%. the argument for keeping seems to accept any possible chance, even 0.1%. The way to determine the standard is, as usual, to discuss individual examples at XfD.  But we have to discuss it,  not ignore it.
 * MfD certainly can be about COI. It can be about any valid reason for not accepting content. Violating the TOU is a reason for not accepting content. What else could it possibly mean?  DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , I'm not sure how any of the "keep" statements equate to supporting a 0.1% chance like you say. We've stated that there's a good possibility that this may be notable in future ("good" quantifies much more highly than 0.1%). That is substantial enough of a chance for a keep at MfD. WP:CRYSTAL (like WP:GNG) does not strictly apply outside of mainspace, it is only when these articles are published to mainspace that articles are expected to meet these guidelines. Your definition of "potential for notability" is very confusing. You said: "Potential for notability in the sense applicable here refers to current potential if sources were properly investigated and a high quality article written..." You've basically just said that the AfD guidelines regarding notability apply to MfD: WP:BEFORE states regarding notability: "If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination." (emphasis added) That's what you just said applies here, also, but standards are relaxed in draftspace. Again, a draft with several supporting reliable sources is more than just "a vague hope." So, are you saying this AfD guideline (notability criteria) also applies to MfD?
 * A declared COI is no reason to nominate an author's contributions for deletion. If that's the only reason for this MfD (because it's NOT WP:SPAM), then I call bullshit. Are you seriously saying that the author is violating the TOU in some way? You really support SwisterTwister in his unsubstantiated accusations? Are you planning to block the author, then, for these supposed TOU violations? Waggie (talk) 04:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I continue to consider this a violation of WP:CRSTAL, to keep it around because in the future they might do something that might be notable. And you seem not to realize that while I will do as an admin only something I am certain will have consensus, I give my opinion here for what I think we ought to do.  DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Fine, if you want to argue WP:CRYSTAL doesn't only apply to content in mainspace articles, that's your prerogative. If you even want to argue that notability criteria should apply in draftspace, that's also your prerogative. Regarding doing things as an admin or not, well blocking the author was only one of my questions, you've strongly implied that you support SwisterTwister's accusations of violations of the Terms of Use, and not refuted that in any way. Before you ask how you implied that, you stated: "Violating the TOU is a reason for not accepting content." while arguing for deletion of THIS draft. So, I ask you again: Do you believe there are violations of the TOU committed by the author? Please either refute this, or support it with evidence. Waggie (talk) 06:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you have not noticed that I have only commented, not !voted at this MfD. The discussions seemed to get to general issues, and I commented on that. I agree with you that in deleting or blocking because of the TOU one problem is determining the violation, given our current  restraints with respect to privacy. I have given no opinion about this draft, nor have I commented on the other editor you mention. In fact, I have not mentioned any individual editor name; I try to avoid that at any XfD.  I don't think I have even directly  given an opinion here about anyone's arguments, except yours. To the extent other people agree with any part of what I say here or elsewhere, that's why I comment--to try to influence people at WP. I am quite aware that some disagree. There is no reason why being an admin should be relevant to an argument about what policy ought to be.
 * You want my opinion about this draft, but I cannot give it, because I continue to be  uncertain about it. You want my opinion of whether the contributor has violated the TOU, but I cannot give it, because I have no way of knowing. I am quite aware that in discussing entertainers, fan COI is more likely than commercial COI.   DGG ( talk ) 18:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * To quote you:
 * "I would like to see some actual discussion over the probability that this wil lever be a viable article."
 * "There are various degrees of likelihood for it, and if the likelihood is low enough, the draft does not belong here."
 * "the argument for keeping seems to accept any possible chance, even 0.1%."
 * "I continue to consider this a violation of WP:CRSTAL, to keep it around because in the future they might do something that might be notable."
 * These sound an awful lot like you're stating opinions about the draft. But now you're saying you have no opinion? No, you have not voted, which is good, because you clearly haven't actually looked at the draft - entertainers?? You have refused to refute or denounce ST's baseless accusations of TOU violations, you have mischaracterized what the 'keep' voters are saying ("the argument for keeping seems to accept any possible chance, even 0.1%." - not true at all), and wade into a deletion discussion without a clear understanding of what's actually being discussed. What brought you to this discussion then? Why are you here, then? You claim to just be trying to facilitate discussion, but you're doing the opposite and just confusing matters even more than ST did by starting this. I give up. Go ahead and do whatever you want, I'm done. If you can't even be bothered to read the draft in question after all this discussion... Waggie (talk) 02:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep... but..., I'm not sure we're supposed to be voting on a draft? In any case, I made some changes and added a good source. They are notable, particularly for the way they apply social media and analytics to multi-level marketing - hence the Techcrunch profile.  I hope when this is resubmitted that this vote counts. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  23:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I just added some more media coverage, from Crain's, Vogue, Cosmopolitan and Glamour. I typed the company name with the first three large woman's fashion publications I could think of, and NY business publication Crains, and every one had a hit.  While typing this, I went back on a hunch and looked for "Wall Street Journal" hits and sure enough - more hits, and I added one.  I don't want to violate WP:OVERCITE but in this case I'm sure I'll get some leeway.  The WSJ article is behind a paywall so I can't extract any more meat, but almost everything there now demonstrates good mainstream media coverage.  Compared to where this was when I found it, it's a big improvement. Hopefully this can be treated as an AfD vote of no consensus, and moved into mainspace, to avoid a single editor patroller being swayed by the article's troubled history and deleting it. It can always be nominated for deletion again, but at least that way it has a chance. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  23:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - I also wanted to quote one of the additional sections of WP:NOT: Simple listings without context information. Examples include, but are not limited to: listings of business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions and tourist attractions which is what the Draft here is, given the fact the 2 sections are about its equipment, products and services therefore violating the main policy. As for the TechCrunch, it's also WP:INDISCRIMINATE coverage given it anything directly or indirectly by the company given that also talks about its products and services; from the source New direct-selling companies, however, are using social media to disrupt the industry. Chloe & Isabel is part of the new wave of startups currently re-defining direct selling, and giving people with an entrepreneurial bent–in particular young women–a way to leverage their social medial contacts into a business and Chloe & Isabel finds its merchandisers by interviewing potential sellers, and only selects 10 percent of the people who apply. The company gets 70 percent of an item’s selling price, while the seller gets 30 percent cut and Each seller gets access to a proprietary platform that helps them set up an online storefront, and leverage and monetize their online social capital with re al-time data analytics that look at click-throughs from their blogs, Twitter, Facebook, and Pinterest. Chloe & Isabel’s strong emphasis on branding helps merchandisers attract buyers. The company is named after the two kinds of consumers the company wants to reach: “Chloe” is a fashion-forward trendsetter, while “Isabel” represents the brand’s more classic and timeless side and For consumers, the advantages of shopping with a Chloe & Isabel merchandiser include getting exclusive designs (the company does not purchase ‘open-line’ products from suppliers, meaning all jewelry is unique to the brand) and savings off retail prices because there is no middleman. Some sellers make almost all of their sales through their online boutiques, while others host Chloe & Isabel events that they promote through their social networks. How else could these be interpeted by simply an extension of the company's own PR? In fact TechCrunch itself has said they have and are catering to company's needs, therefore not in line with our encyclopedia goals. SwisterTwister   talk  05:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete There are two kinds of company spam. The obvious "Here at the world's leading widget factory..." and stuff like this, which looks plausible but is based on dubiously reliable sources. Even if it's argued that it's still a draft, I can't see how this could be moved to article space in anything like its current incarnation Jimfbleak - talk to me?  05:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - simple promotional brochure for this company. While I understand the opinions of some of the keep !votes, what they are not looking at is how drafts like these, which keep getting resubmitted with little or no improvement clog up the AfC process. There is very little in the article which is of encyclopedic quality.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * But that's the whole point. I agree, if a draft is re-submitted with little or no improvement time and time again, then it should be deleted.  In this case, there has been measurable good-faith improvement with each re-submission.  I repeat, I am not arguing this is ready to be promoted to an article.  To answer DGG's first question, I'd give this about a 20% chance of ever making it.  That said, I believe the process is important: because if we tell COI editors that the draft/AfC process is the correct procedure in their situation, it is therefore hypocritical to delete their work without allowing them to further work on it, when they have clearly demonstrated they are listening and willing to make the suggested/necessary/required changes.  There is also a chance that, going through the process, we will gain a "regular" editor as they come to understand Wikipedia's policies and processes.  If we delete their work in the circumstances I have described, and I believe this draft fits those circumstances, we are almost certainly guaranteed to forever "turn off" a potential productive editor.   <font color="008B8B">78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 13:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm all for convincing for a new person but there's also the clear factor this user not only resubmitted repeatedly without first asking, and how they haven't responded to anything since. It's not a matter of driving them off but instead they never fully understood our TermsofUse in both articles and process. Sacrificing our goals here is not beneficial simply for the potential chance they may learn. Since you quote the "chances" comment, that person also said we need either a 3/4 chance or better and especially to pass AfD. In its current state, improved or not, it would still suggest using us as a storage webhost instead of an encyclopedia; if we allow any mistaken belief of that, it's sending a negative message and one that's impossible to later retract. Because there was still company involvement here and there was no eventual change, it's best to allow a non-COI to significantly start anew and we've followed this example before, and there's nothing suggesting it wouldn't be a solution. SwisterTwister   talk  16:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Now you are making stuff up - three submissions spaced well apart over a period of 3 months is not as you've greatly exaggerated "repeatedly resubmitting". Also no one is required to ask permission to resubmit from you or anyone else. They asked for assistance in -help a few times and you'd know that had you asked anyone instead of badgering a COI editor who followed policy. You also clearly do not understand what the purpose of AfC is (and not just based on this ridiculous MfD.) But can you really blame them for not responding? Your behavior here makes me want to leave too. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  00:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Now that I have some time, two comments on this discussion.
 * A large part of the nominator's attack on my defense of this article is by attacking Techcrunch as a valid source, and then making generalizations that show a misunderstanding about how public relations works. Most reporters don't cold call companies to do articles on them - the interviews and profiles are usually set up an inhouse or external PR person. In the case of this article, how else would the reporter know that the names Chloe and Isabel were hypothetical people, except that the company told them?  I disagree strongly with the generalization that anything a publication is told by a company is fluff and is therefore unreliable.  Taking it to the extreme, if Techcrunch is indeed unreliable, wouldn't it make sense to nominate its  own article for deletion?  That would be a lot of work - here are some of the pages that link to that article, which would then need to be unlinked. []
 * Most importantly, to echo Chrissymad, chasing away people who try to follow the rules and implying that they shouldn't edit just encourages more and more people to seek out paid editors. Has everyone read this? [] Unless you want the pool of new editors to dry up, you might consider giving them some leeway. I was uninvolved when I saw this article in the deletion log, and only took the time to add info to make a point, and because I've seen this pattern of behaviour before. We all need to work together and be bold and call out unproductive behaviour when we see it. <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  01:24, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not because this is corporate spam as such, so much because it doesn't appear that the company is notable enough that a neutral editor will be able to turn it around. It is more likely that keeping will just permit its re-review to waste the time of the reviewers.  Robert McClenon (talk) 10:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * keep there are enough sources in the article, and additional ones mentioned here, there there is a reasonable probability (say 20-30%) that a though search and good writing would produce a valid article. More over there appears to have been a series of good-faith attempts at improvement buy the draft creator. This is exactly what draft space is for. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- declined 3 times at AfC and no opportunity for improvement, i.e. demonstrating this company's notability. Sources that I'm seeing are all WP:SPIP. Might as well delete now. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * delete--Nothing convinces me that it's ever going to make the cut for GNG.Why waste the valuable time of reviewers? Winged Blades Godric 10:24, 23 July 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.