Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:IBuild Africa

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 . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft:IBuild Africa

Draft:IBuild Africa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 04:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Multiple declines with little changes in between, quite seemingly not going anywhere rotting in draft space. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 01:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Neutral - No one has cautioned the submitter against resubmitting more or less as is. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Keep understanding "tone" is in fact a really difficult skill for a lot of people. While some editors here might believe that it's "obvious" that such and such article has a "promotional tone", it really isn't apparent to some editors, many of whom have simply grown up being widely exposed to ad copy.

Looking at this draft, we can see that a recent reviewer has commented on how the editor has made some changes to the draft to remove some of the promotional tone, so there is evidence they are doing something and responding to notes. Why is this being asked for deletion? THERE IS NO DEADLINE- isn't that a concept around here? Leave drafters alone. This draft was reviewed only ten days ago the current rules state that a drafter has 6 months to work on a draft, so the point of this nomination is what? To snatch a draft out of a new editor's hands and chuck it in the fire without warning? Egaoblai (talk) 08:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• keep Plausible, quite possibly notable subject, not unreasonable draft. Not currently ready for mainspace, but does seem to be making slow improvements, and may be ready in time. Current policy says there is no limit on the number of times a draft may be submitted for review, and this editor seems ot be trying (iif not skilfully) to correct the issues reviewers have brought up. Do not delete as per WP:BITE and "If in doubt, don't delete" and "Deletion should be the last resort" DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:02, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Delete the disruptive hammering of AfC (6 submits, including 5 in one day!) seems to have slowed, but after all those submissions it still has promotional tone and isn't close to mainspace quality. Keeping it seems a needless drain on AfC workload at this point. VQuakr (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Delete there needs to be a limit on resubmissions. To turn the page around declined 6 times in one day is amazing service by AfC. Enough though. If creator wants to put this in mainspace they have the right to try. Legacypac (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment The people calling for delete are basing their argument on the fact that it was declined by AFC 6 times. That's no reason to delete this, and seems likely that this is a problem with AFC rather than a notability problem.And so there's no reason this AFD should be anything other than keep at this point. Egaoblai (talk) 12:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

No AfC is providing excellent turn aroud telling the submitter the page is unsuitable. MfD is a more firm way of delivering the same message. Legacypac (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 04:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• Delete on re-reading, as a promotional article and Wikipedia is not a directory. Striking original neutral. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:59, 8 June 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.