Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Purplehed Records

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 21:00, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Purplehed Records

I have just declined this draft for the fourth time. It's a record label founded in 2014 by two brothers, one of whoom also has a Draft article written by the same user. The user has virtually no history on Wikipedia other than repeatedly trying to get these articles up. Both read pretty promotionally and fail to make the case for inclusion, as you'd expect given that they are fresh out of school as it were. I think out of kindness to the user it's time to nuke this so he can move on. Guy (Help!) 23:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Guy,

I appreciate that you took time to review my draft.

Firstly I have added most of the reliable sources like Trending on twitter in India for more that 10 hours, features on magazines and articles and then submitted for another review to get feedbacks for further improvements, I don't understand why and how it it more unreliable source. I was not hoping that my next reviewer will assume lot of things without even thinking or researching other side of the coin. And this is like too much fresh out of school really? Kindly elaborate what things you think are made up by me? I would like to debate on that because I am sure I have given credible and reliable source for each and every information and if not I will happily remove that piece of information which you think is made up by me . Despite of that, I don't understand why you have nominated my draft for deletion? It is my 1 year of research and I have really worked hard for it. I have not broken any wikipedia rule. Discussed lot of queries on Teahouse to improve it. And this is just your point of view that both are read pretty promotional, I have reached here with lot of reviews and failures. And regarding other draft, You can read the comment on it which clearly says "Although you listed several sources and, with it, information, there's still questionability to where I can't accept and it may then be best to wait for his career to continue, and see if the notability becomes clearer (and then resubmit at that later time). SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC) " Till now whatever other users have suggested me, I have followed but you are asking me to delete my 1 year work. Why ? Dont you think its unfair? Yes I have written another draft related to same subject because I have done enough research on it. I understand according to you if its not notable you can decline but why delete? If you find it promotional its your job to guide me to fix it. Don't you think, it should be my call whether I want to move on or not?

Dear senior members who have interacted with me previously , kindly help me on this thread, This is very unfair what is happening now and I would like to know your thoughts on it. SwisterTwister, Primefac,Onel5969, Checkingfax,Northamerica1000 cullen328, Cordless larry.

Looking forward for justice for atleast once Catrat999 (talk) 08:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC) — Catrat999 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Trouble is, I looked at those interactions and they all seem to be requests at Teahouse and elsewhere for help in creating exactly this article. Guy (Help!) 09:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So what is trouble in it ? Please read this article and tell where I am wrong? " As a new writer Consider requesting feedback. I can request feedback on articles I would like to create in a number of places, including the talk page of a related WikiProject or the Teahouse." Wikipedia:Your first article Catrat999 (talk) 09:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as, not only considering the numerous submissions, this is over fluffed with sources, and the advert concerns still stay; none of thid suggests what would be needed to become a convincing article. It becomes worse if this only actuslly exists as a PR campaign. SwisterTwister talk 12:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister : Really ? I was not aware of this rule that submitting again and again for further improvement will lead to deletion else I would have taken more time before submitting again. That was informative. Regarding advert concern I am open for any kind of changes required but in order to do so someone will have to volunteer to point of the problems rather than simply adding a general tag:) Never Mind I appreciate your feedback. To further clarify I read about this subject long back in a reputed print magazine - Society magazine and there after when I furthered researched, I found more credible news like The Hindu , India.com, Afternoon DC, The Asian Age . Recently they were trending on twitter trends in India and I thought subject is definitely worthy of notice :) I definitely don't want to do any PR campaign for any brand. Eventually with time when I will write many articles on other subjects may be I might be able to prove my point as currently everyone is judging me based on my first article and 2nd article:)

Go ahead everyone and do whatever you feel is best for wikipedia rather than assuming lot of misconceptions without any research :) I wonder what makes every reviewer assume false and evil characters for every new comer just by reading an article :( Trust me I have good intension and thats the reason I am working with drafts and seeking feedbacks and following all the guidelines. I am not here to pollute wikipedia. On a serious and professional note I was a seeking a unbiased solution here as I closely monitor what all articles are accepted daily. Best Regards Catrat999 (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even if there was additional news (focused news, not mere mentions), the only largest challenge about it is the fact it's still too recent in that it's only 2 years old, that's too soon. It's unlikely there could be anything better beyond this limited amount of tine, therefore it's currently unacceptable. SwisterTwister talk 13:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SwisterTwister : Ok sir :) If this is heading in wrong direction lets delete it. Will wait for clearer notability. Thanks and Best Regards to everyone out here Catrat999 (talk) 12:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.