Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Lip Ink International

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. JohnCD (talk) 11:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Lip Ink International

This article has been declined by numerous AfC reviewers, and shows no obvious signs to me it could ever be improved to meet the acceptable standards for a mainspace article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I understand the value in not allowing an editor to plough a useless furrow, they seem to have got the trick to referencing now. I doubt that there is much chance of their showing WP:N, but I suggest we allow them one more review cycle before shooting this draft dead. Now you have nominated this for deletion, how do we do that? Fiddle Faddle 21:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent: Best thing to do probably is !vote keep and see if you can encourage the submitter to either improve the article to easily withstand an AfD and then submit (which I don't believe is possible) or to edit somewhere else. I personally believe this submission will never be accepted. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Had there been any effort to edit it since you nominated it I would do so. Since there is not I will let it wither on the vine. Fiddle Faddle 13:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is no chance of an article at this point. If they ever actually become notable and some non-paid editor wants to write about them, then there can be an article. One step we can take -- now -- individually -- without the need for new policy -- to diminish the workload at AfC and -- more importantly -- make it clear to promotional editors that WP is not the place for them, is to stop the pointless re-creation of hopelessly promotional articles about non notable subjects. DGG ( talk ) 16:37, 13 April 2015 (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.