Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:IBuild Africa: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 11: Line 11:


*'''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. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 15:21, 3 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. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Egaoblai|Egaoblai]] ([[User talk:Egaoblai|talk]]) 12:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:25, 4 June 2018

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

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)[reply]

  • Neutral - No one has cautioned the submitter against resubmitting more or less as is. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]