Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Credible (2nd nomination)

 __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. I concur with the Dodger67's rationale particularly. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 01:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Credible


Declined 7 times as an advertisement. enough is enough. From the comments at the Draft [age, the contributor seems still to confuse existence with notability, and self-serving interviews with 3rd party sources.  DGG ( talk ) 08:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Article has been through substantial revisions, in response to direction provided by reviewers and Wikipedia guidelines. Am attempting to address reviewer's comments, still awaiting a response on article's talk page. 162.245.21.61 (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This draft is not improving, the "best sources" discussed on the draft's talk page, being interviews and "sound bite" passing mentions, fall well short of being in-depth coverage of the subject. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as clear advertising alone. SwisterTwister   talk  00:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's notability guideline calls for "significant" coverage. There is no requirement for "substantial" or "in-depth" coverage:


 * If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.


 * "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.


 * The three references cited on the talk page represent only a portion of the sustained coverage that the subject has received. If there is still an ongoing debate over notability, that does not justify deleting this article. The notability guideline states:


 * For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort.


 * Reviewers have failed to identify specific language in the article that violates neutral point of view guideline . The article:


 * --Avoids stating opinions as facts.
 * --Avoids stating seriously contested assertions as facts.
 * --Avoids stating facts as opinions.
 * --Employs nonjudgmental language that neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject.


 * Wikipedia editors are advised that "a differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities."

162.245.21.61 (talk) 01:01, 1 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.