Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Ross Reels

 __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 14:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Ross Reels


Declined 4 times now and the information and sources still emulate a business PR listing and, with it, there's still nothing satisfying our policies. SwisterTwister  talk  18:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep . Plausibly notable, and not written promotionally.  MfD is not a forum for deciding close notability questions.  AfC should develop better procedures for communication, and for dealing with non-communicating newcomers.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In this case, the article itself isn't showing the signs of notability since the information and sources are trivial even going as far to contain as a trivial "state" award", because there's been 4 declines and nothing close to the improvements our policies need, then it's currently unacceptable. Naturally AfC is not a webhost of company Drafts, but it's also not the place to host an unimprovable Draft in which no one but the apparent company employees contributing here, cared to learn how our policies function. SwisterTwister   talk  23:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * While I don't see it passing WP:N or WP:CORP, neither do I see it failing WP:NOT. It therefore doesn't fail policy, and is not worthy of MfD.  On the point of repeated submissions, I note a failure to attempt to correspond with the registered user.  User talk:Nexus65 contains no messages worthy of a human.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Any user who is interested to learn and understand our policies would certainly at least make efforts of it after 3 reviews especially when they've all posted the same "Not satisfying our necessary notability" and worse when the account focused with nothing else, suggesting it was an SPA advertising one (therefore a business listing is not what any non-COI involves itself with), thus also concerns with WP:NOT because Wikipedia Is Not A Business Listing or YellowPages, that itself is in policy. SwisterTwister   talk  05:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Reviewing again, I don't see it passing WP:CORP, it is a business description with no attempt to cover impact or others' commentary on it. AfC needs better newcomer-communication, but I expect communication will not solve the Wikipedia Is Not A Business Listing or YellowPages aspect.   --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:03, 13 January 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.