Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Ascentium Capital
- 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: keep at least for now. Could be renominated in the future if there is no improvement, and of course if it goes to mainspace, then AfD has a different set of criteria. RL0919 (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Page rejected at AfC but the creator disagrees. Bring this for wider discussion. If we agree topic does not pass NCORP we should delete it. If not enough editors agree to deletion the page should be promoted to mainspace because this discussion will override the AfC assessment Legacypac (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- If the author disagrees, let him mainspace it himself. Then you can AfD it. At AfD, I would !vote delete.
- Until the draft is repeatedly submitted without substantial improvement, it can’t be deleted at AfD. It has too many ok-ish sources to delete from MfD as WP:PROMOTION, let alone CSD#G11. At mfd we can’t delete it for failing WP:CORP. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- Creator has a COI and is posting at the AfC help desk and the draft talkpage why he believes notable. Legacypac (talk) 04:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - I didn't see the guideline to make this forum Rejection Review.
- Comment - I agree with User:SmokeyJoe. Not ready for mainspace, and should be deleted in mainspace. Not bad enough for G11, and not any of the sorts of nuisances that should be deleted at MFD. Can be allowed to die a natural death in draft space. However, if User:IrfanAli512 wants to resubmit, I am willing to move the rejected draft to Draft:Ascentium Capital (2), so that they can submit a new draft and see if they can get it accepted. Otherwise:
- Keep for six months. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Keep This is precisely what the draftspace is for, and why there is a six-month window to allow editors to work draft articles that do not qualify for a different speedy deletion (or have their speedy nom contested). UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:37, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- There is no allowance for Drafts to exist for 6 months because someone created them. That is not a built in feature of Draft space. If no one thinks this belongs in mainspace it should be deleted. If the vote is not to delete I will move it to mainspace because it survived a deletion discussion so it must not be that bad. Legacypac (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- No, an mfd vote to keep does not justify mainspacing, and not being ready for mainspace is not a reason to delete a draft. You been blocked for moving unsuitable drafts to mainspace before, the outcome of that game is not unknown. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- That is not correct. Legacypac (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- No, an mfd vote to keep does not justify mainspacing, and not being ready for mainspace is not a reason to delete a draft. You been blocked for moving unsuitable drafts to mainspace before, the outcome of that game is not unknown. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- There is no allowance for Drafts to exist for 6 months because someone created them. That is not a built in feature of Draft space. If no one thinks this belongs in mainspace it should be deleted. If the vote is not to delete I will move it to mainspace because it survived a deletion discussion so it must not be that bad. Legacypac (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete This company is a pretty small player as financial service companies go. It is not unheard of for companies to manage several trillions of dollars. That being said, I agree with Davisonio's decline -- it sounds to me like a timeline on a company's website and not the right tone for an encyclopedia. -- Dolotta (talk) 01:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Dolotta, Thanks for your review. Since Wikipedia is about facts, it’s important to note the finance industry is not just one big sector, and there are many Wikipedia pages that inform on this. Ascentium Capital is in the business equipment finance sector as the page and sources states: Ascentium Capital as the largest private-independent equipment finance lender in the U.S. with an industry recognized source. How you can help: I have read through Wikipedia documents, so provide guidance on your comment about tone. Please be specific on how this does not meet the right tone for Wikipedia (not just any encyclopedia) and how it can be altered. IrfanAli512 (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- 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.