Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:The National ELT Accreditation Scheme

 __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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 04:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft:The National ELT Accreditation Scheme


This draft has been  resubmitted eight times now without improvement or third party sources. It's basically a web page for the organizsation.  DGG ( talk ) 07:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - Enough is enough. Still no independent references.  Wikipedia is not a directory.  Robert McClenon (talk) 10:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Not offensively promotional. Has at least merge potential. Leaning WP:TNT, but do not restart without at least two independent sources. The eight times resubmission failure is a communication failure, fault lying at the AfC process, the draft needed a more clear and forceful rejection the first time.  The first declines were correct, but they demonstrably failed to make the desired impact on the author. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. I fail to understand how this is an AfC failure. What would you suggest the templates say? "Your draft sucks, don't bother re-submitting it until you can demonstrate basic competency regarding our policies"? Just get rid of it as tendentious resubmission. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I fail to understand how everyone can't see how stupid the templating is. There's an explosion of templates with boxes and icons and text formats, the vast majority not human-written text and not useful.  There is an obvious implicit message that not all the text needs to be read.  Depending on the reader's guess of meaning of box indentation, the first text to be read is: "You are encouraged to make improvements by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of this page."  The next sentence onwards is mind-numbing verbosity.  Skip it a bit and you come to the big blue "Submit" box.  The message is "improve and resubmit".  No human correspondence involved.  An on the face reading of the instructions tells the author to edit, improve, and resubmit.  The templated bloat is absurd.  The method of communicating comments to the author is inconsistent with standard Wikipedia style, on the wrong page, not the talk page, and in the wrong order, and overall not inviting of discussion.  See my edits to the page for what I consider a big improvement.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Do not Delete I do not think that this article "The National ELT Accreditation Scheme" should be deleted. First of all, it has been placed in a category - "educational charities in Australia". Secondly, the entry is far more notable than the other articles on educational charities published in that category. Furthermore, the article is accompanied by more references of notability than its associate "English Australia", whose article HAS been published on Wikipedia with no references. Moreover, references have been added, removed and bettered at every edit, only to be rejected again and again. Finally, the references provided in the latest edit are extensive and do prove notability. (CamTESOL (talk) 04:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC))
 * , thank you for coming here and contributing. The best thing you can do to help right here and now is to provide the 2-3 best sources for demonstrating Wikipedia-notability.  These sources must: (1) be reliable; (2) be independently written and published, with respect to the topic and anyone associated; (3) comment directly on the topic, at least two sentences, revealing the opinion of the writer and not simply reporting facts, i.e. a secondary source.  Do not provide less than two, or more than three.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe something easier then?
 * Is there any current Wikipedia article in which a mention of this organisation would be worth a mention? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:14, 15 May 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.