164:
in top press like NY Times, LA Times, Tech Crunch and Wall Street
Journal. Since the last review rejection, the company has grown, received new funding, and been covered in-depth by leading publications. Even if that is not already notable by Knowledge (XXG) standards, the company is surely on track to be notable as a travel website. I would request admin to re-consider the decision to delete the draft to allow users to continue to improve it.
163:
The article in question is a draft and is still being worked on. The draft has been considerably improved per comments and suggestions left by reviewers (there are no more instances of promotional language as noted initially). Quick note on notability - the company has been extensively written about
112:
6 reviews within a year and still nothing genuinely substantial and convincing for acceotance hence another review wouldn't help. My final comments here were clear quite clear why this was unacceptable but the Draft itself has stayed the same hence unimprovable. Our non-negotiable policies
145:
nomination? Lack of notability isn't a valid reason for deleting drafts, yet that appears to be the primary concern expressed in your comments on the draft.
117:
explicitly state we are both not a business listing and not a company webhist, and the fact this has nothing else actually convincing, that's far enough.
61:
186:
95:
17:
91:
83:
193:(help) ("Drafts may be nominated for deletion at but not on a primary concern of notability." (internal citation omitted)).
57:
225:
40:
206:
173:
158:
135:
130:
64:
53:
87:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below.
221:
36:
78:
70:
165:
169:
118:
190:
142:
200:
152:
182:
Lack of notability—the only argument made—is not an acceptable reason for deleting a draft.
114:
220:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's
195:
147:
187:
WT:N/Archive 58 § RfC: Does WP:N apply to drafts in userspace or draftspace?
214:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
103:
99:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
228:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion
7:
48:The result of the discussion was:
24:
1:
65:12:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
207:20:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
174:20:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
159:14:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
136:17:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
248:
217:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
54:CambridgeBayWeather
239:
219:
205:
203:
198:
157:
155:
150:
133:
128:
108:
107:
34:
247:
246:
242:
241:
240:
238:
237:
236:
232:
226:deletion review
215:
201:
196:
194:
153:
148:
146:
131:
119:
81:
79:Draft:Suiteness
77:
74:
71:Draft:Suiteness
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
245:
243:
234:
231:
230:
210:
209:
177:
161:
110:
109:
73:
68:
58:Uqaqtuq (talk)
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
244:
235:
229:
227:
223:
218:
212:
211:
208:
204:
199:
192:
188:
185:
181:
178:
175:
171:
167:
162:
160:
156:
151:
144:
140:
139:
138:
137:
134:
129:
126:
122:
116:
105:
101:
97:
93:
89:
85:
80:
76:
75:
72:
69:
67:
66:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
233:
216:
213:
183:
179:
124:
120:
111:
49:
47:
31:
28:
141:Is this a
62:Sunasuttuq
222:talk page
191:WP:Drafts
176:Dmulan123
166:Dmulan123
37:talk page
224:or in a
39:or in a
92:history
127:wister
123:wister
115:WP:NOT
180:Keep.
143:DEL14
100:watch
96:links
16:<
197:Rebb
170:talk
149:Rebb
132:talk
104:logs
88:talk
84:edit
50:Keep
202:ing
184:See
154:ing
189:;
172:)
102:|
98:|
94:|
90:|
86:|
60:,
56:,
52:.
168:(
125:T
121:S
106:)
82:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.