Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Zanroo

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 . Will salt due to repeated recreation. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Zanroo[edit]

submitted 6 times without improvement ; no real possibility of an article DGG ( talk ) 20:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete awful sources Legacypac (talk) 21:02, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep AfC drafts can be deleted after six months of inaction; no need to rush this case. Nom does not provide a valid reason for delete. Newimpartial (talk) 00:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - page has been G11'd twice, declined a half dozen times. Clearly the creator is missing the point. Let's just put the page out of its misery. Primefac (talk) 02:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This draft was being tendentiously resubmitted, something I've blocked the creator for. MER-C 04:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no need to wait 6 months if the material is as bas as this. The sooner hopeless material is removed, the less likely to be repeatedly resubmitted, and not detract from dealing with drafts that can benefit from careful review. DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do wish I could have done more, perhaps explaining in my own words to the creator why the draft did not conform to policies, or trying to improve the article myself, but because of my inertia, I can often not do much more than a few clicks and a few words at a time (in this case, just clicking the decline and speedy request buttons). I've also not been very active recently, as I'm considering retiring. I do feel, though, that the creator did try to improve the draft, because from memory (I can't remember completely because the draft was recreated after being deleted, instead of DRV'd), the page was very promotional, and now I'd say it just fails G11, but it's still arguably promotional to me. I don't think there's much I can do as far as the creator's concerned, since they're blocked. Still, I think they may well have had a COI and therefore wouldn't have been able to write about it in an encyclopaedic-enough way. Linguist ^talk|contribs 15:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A quick Google search shows that there are sources that cover the subject, but articles about companies are not in my area of expertise, so I'm not sure we meet WP:NCOMPANY. Adding that to the creator and only substantial contributor having a potential COI and now being blocked, and the page being promotionally worded and therefore having questionable salvageability, it doesn't have much hope as it stands. With the only definitely concerning factor being how the page is now, I don't have much basis for a solid delete vote. If sufficient sourcing (that ensures notability) can be applied and the page improved with a more encyclopaedic tone, I would be in favour of it being kept and put through to the mainspace, but if it's still in it's current form after a substantial amount of time (i.e. after seven days), I wouldn't really have a problem with it being deleted (although I would still not give a solid delete vote). With all of this said, that leaves me at neutral, leaning towards a very weak delete. Linguist ^talk|contribs 15:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Dreadful. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:20, 4 June 2017 (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.