Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Suyati Technologies

 __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. Unlikely to become an article at this time; no prejudice against recreation if better sources occur. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 16:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Suyati Technologies

 * &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Continues to be an advert, with no evidence that it can be salvaged. Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  06:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: I have cleaned up the advertising (actually most of the article) and added a few refs -Mparrault (talk) 16:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete as per nom, definitely fails WP:NCORP. References are like standard press release and provide zero claim to notability, certainly no lasting notability. --  P 1 9 9  ✉ 16:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment The nominator listed this for deletion based on being advertising, not notability. Drafts cannot be deleted for not being notable - see WP:NMFD.  Having said that, I don't think this company is notable, so this draft will never become an article unless something changes.  I'm not going to work on it any more. - Mparrault (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NMFD is misleading. Just look across the current MfD list and you will see we consider notability all the time in various ways on drafts. Legacypac (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:NMFD represents a clear community consensus against applying notability to drafts - see this RfC. Legacypac was one of the only dissenters to that consensus.  The fact that it is being ignored more broadly is troubling.  -Mparrault (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * A very badly phrased question and an awful close to an RfC that ignored all the qualifications users made to their votes resulted in the stingy narrow wording of that shortcut. Policy and guidence should reflect actual practice not something else. Legacypac (talk) 18:46, 21 January 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.