Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Kinron Community Event Planning Services Inc

 __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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Kinron Community Event Planning Services Inc


Declined an amazing 10 times at AfC since March 2016. It was G13 declined but no effort being put into fixing the issues. This should be deleted by discussion rather then left to hang around forever Legacypac (talk) 03:07, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Substantially improved before the later decline. A plausibly notable not-for-profit.  Submitted an amazing 10times means that something is special or something is wrong with the submission process and review process. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - Submitted 10 times is no record. Not every non-profit is notable.  Submitted 10 times does mean that something is wrong with the submission process, which is too many tendentious submissions.  We already documented that as an explanation.  Not ready now for article space and will never be with this proponent, or probably anyone, so:
 * Delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It is improper, unfair, to call tendentious resubmitting when the author is following the instructions to edit improve and resubmit. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Does WP:CORP cover this non-profit? WP:CORP says "The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams".  If covered by WP:CORP, I support deletion, because I checked the first 8 references, and nonesupport Wikipedia-notability, and I believe that WP:CORP topics require the authors to put up notability sources upfront.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC) i.e.  Is it offensively promotional and needing a quick deletion, or do we feel sorry for it and let it die a slow lingering death before being dispatched by G13?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - Okay, okay. We can agree that this submitter is not being tendentious.  There is something wrong with the submission and review process, besides the wording of the decline template, and that is that the reviewers never invited the submitter to discuss at the Teahouse or the AFC Help Desk or a WikiProject.  Reviewers should do that at some point.  Also, organizational notability guidelines are the same as corporate notability guidelines.  I have already !voted Delete.  Robert McClenon (talk) 13:07, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

The reviewers have been very clear the business does not meet WP:NCORP due to lack of sources supporting its notability. If someone disagrees with that judgement speak up - otherwise we need to support the reviewer's conclusion this page would not survive in mainspace and put it out of it's misery. Legacypac (talk) 16:14, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: Holy crap, TEN submissions? And honestly, for those not wanting to click on the link (good, because it's a mislink), the "substantially improvement"  SmokeyJoe claims to have happened is one paragraph of substantive text.  We don't make decisions at XfD because we feel sorry for people or things, we do it because of guideline and policy.  This is a two-years-stale draft of an entity that doesn't pass notability muster anyway.   Ravenswing   08:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There was that big RfC that concluded that notability is not a deletion reason for drafts. Many respectable Wikipedians asserted that. No hope, but don’t delete. That leaves tagging it as rejected, and yet AfC keeps putting that saccharine encouragement to edit improve resubmit. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 16:30, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - Good editors occasionally have truly terrible ideas. User:SmokeyJoe had one above, in saying that submitting ten times either means that something is special or something is wrong with the submission process.  At least, it is a truly terrible idea if SmokeyJoe means that we should consider that maybe the organization is special.  If they just mean that the situation is peculiar in that the submitter is stubborn, that is true.  I am willing to concede that the submitter was acting in good faith in resubmitting with what they saw as improvements, but a pig with lipstick is still a pig, and no amount of work can overcome a lack of notability.  What did SmokeyJoe mean, anyway?  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * With AfC, multiple things are wrong all at once. Attracting bad drafts. Not responding to bad drafts clearly. Inviting resubmission of bad drafts. Misleading newcomers about there being hope.
 * I’ve been trying to come up with ideas. The firm reject template is one, and I can’t understand why people aren’t agreeing. Another is to put the onus on the drafter to provide their three best sources, as that would make it easy to make the notability decision. Under the current practice, to declare something non notable, you have to have searched for all possibly existing sources and that is too hard. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 16:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


 * keep Submitter is clearly attempting, in good faith, to improve this. Lack of success (to date) is not and should not be a reason for deletion. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've placed a warning on this admin's talkpage to stop making votes that go against policy. Ten assertions this page is ready for mainspace is enough already. Legacypac (talk) 22:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * And my view stands, and should be considered by the closer along with all other views. Note that clicking the AfC "Submit" button is not an, rather it is an implicit statement "I think this might be ready for mainspace, but I'm not sure. Please check and let me know." At least that is how the AFC templates present it. If a User was convinced that a page was ready for mainspace, after 10 edits and 4 days the user could simply move it there, although we often don't tell new users that. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * And where exactly in policy are you, entitled to tell editors, whether admins or not, to stop expressing particular views in what are supposed to eb discussions to determine consensus, even if they go against your view of current consensus? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You have no right to use MFDs as part of your campaign to override a recent RFC. Please stop the disruption. Submission to AfC is a request to publish and, on a resubmission, an assertion that the problems are fixed. Legacypac (talk) 23:17, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Deletion policy in particular is often shaped by what happens at individual deletion discussions. It is therefore perfectly appropriate to argue policy positions during an MfD discussion, and hope that the example helps them find traction. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Where in the instructions that a new user sees does it say that? It does say "If you have not resolved the issues listed above, your draft will be declined again and potentially deleted." But how is the user to know what will constitute "resolving the issues"? It does not say "resubmit more than three times and your draft will be nominated for deletion if any editor thinks substantial progress is not being made with it". DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think Des’ empathy for newcomers experiencing rough treatment at AfC is very important and to be welcomed at every point. -SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:24, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * DES wrote:"the AfC 'Submit' button is not an, rather it is an implicit statement 'I think this might be ready for mainspace, but I'm not sure. Please check and let me know.'"
 * Concidentally, I just posted at WT:AfC: this comment addressing that very problem. I feel AfC needs help to find solutions to longstanding difficult problems, please comment there, focusing on adding or developing new ideas. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:22, 16 June 2018 (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.