Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Mash Direct

 __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:  Move to article space so  can fix it up. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Mash Direct

 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

5 reviews and the Draft itself has not changed and our policies are clear about both unsuitable and unacceptable contents here and since the article simply contains announcements, mentions and similar triviality, none of it convinces. Available sourcing is simply press releases, announcements, listings and mentions and none of it is anything else but PR, including the awards which consist of PR trade publications. SwisterTwister  talk  05:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Move to mainspace. Lots of ghits.  Has won multiple awards, each with coverage.  User:SwisterTwister, what proportion of your AfC approvals go to AfD, and are deleted?  Virtually 0%.  I suspect that AfC reviewers are a harder bar to pass than AfD, and that is not good.  AfC reviewers demanding inline citations is way over the top of what is required of the first draft of a new article.  New contributors get better help and responses by creating new content directly into mainspace.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There's nothing to move to mainspace because the sources are noticeably guide listings, announcements, interviews, quotes and all similar so WP:Wikipedia is not a business listing which is part of our highest policy, WP:NOT, applies, and given the chances of improvements each time, that suggests either improvements are unconceivable or simply not wanted as that, hence deletion. The awards I see here are simply trade publication-awarded or PR overall. Next, and important to note, is the fact the user hardly visited this at all (activity: October until coming back one last time in December 12) and their last talk message was this which suggests there were no serious plans. SwisterTwister   talk  01:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I maintain my opinion that this is a notable topic. The current state of the article is pretty poor, but in mainspace it would be stubbified, not deleted. The user has received a pathetic reception, no encouragement, it is no surprise.  AfC is a failure.  You may like to read other opinions and contribute yourself at Wikipedia_talk:Drafts.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * User:SwisterTwistehere, you are wrong. WP:NOT is not our "highest policy".  WP:NOT is a collection of extreme statements.  "WP:Wikipedia is not a business listing" is true, but this topic is notable and would not constitute a business listing.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

which is part of our highest policy, WP:NOT,
 * 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.