Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Roundme

 __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 10:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Roundme


Blatant advertising in which there's absolutely no hopes of actual policy-based notability especially given how these publications are notoriously known for encouraging such advertising so there's nothing to actually believe or suggest actual non-advert substance, that's why we use pillar policies to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwisterTwister (talk • contribs) 04:34, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "we use pillar policies to delete" is nonsense. Five pillars is not "policy"; deletions are governed from Deletion policy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I believe that this one will meet WP:CORP. I agree with User:SwisterTwister that the current version is too promotional.  Some might argue that WP:TNT applies, but I think it is better for transparency to keep a record, including the record of WP:SPAs User:Palefacer456 and User:31Chasery, and also of interested non-SPA editors User:Jcc and User:LaMona.  To the SPAs, I would advise them to desist with the use of multiple accounts, stick to one account per person, and to learn some more about Wikipedia before adding content to which they are connected.  Before pushing again for the article Roundme, find some other articles that should refer to this article, and improve those articles collaboratively with the editors you encounter.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no interest in the article; I merely reviewed it as part of AfC. The original submitter asked me to re-review the draft, hence I resubmitted the draft on their behalf so another reviewer could take a look. It is perhaps significant that Onel5969, LaMona and I all declined the draft because of its tone as opposed to a lack of notability. jcc (tea and biscuits) 12:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * When it involves this sheer blatancy and with the obvious signs of involved COI, there's nothing to suggest we should "hope for improvements", Draftspace is where potential articles are kept, not a webhost of any subject. Because our policies such as WP:NOT are pillars, they are in fact essential and thus allow for deletion. SwisterTwister   talk  03:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Having looked for sources to meet WP:CORP, I don't find them. It's just a reputable good app.  Many ghits, but all reviews are promotion. "Cons: There is nothing negative​ to say about this app", similarly written whether or not they are obviously non-independent. Thus, I conclude, attempts to include coverage on Wikipedia violates WP:NOTPROMOTION.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:20, 2 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.