UrbanClap – No interest in undeleting or unsalting the affected pages. Nominator is advised to work in Draft:UrbanClap until such time as a notable, non-promotional article is produced. – Jclemens (talk) 05:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
UrbanClap (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Promo Language Bulle Shah (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2017 (UTC) Comment It was the first time I had written on this title while being aware it's previous deletion records. The matter was with the language, my article was labeled as no different from the previous ones. But I have never seen how previous ones were because they were actually deleted. I wrote the article after having a good read around the other articles of the similar kind. I was ready to improvise but it was speedy deletion so I was left with no choice. The company passes WP:GNG as there are plenty of sources. And I believeBulle Shah (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC) just having a bad article written on a notable subject does not disqualify it from having a Wikipedia page.[reply] Question and Comment This was present in slightly different form as a Draft and as an article, and it was speedy deleted from both. The speedy deletion from mainspace was unquestionably valid, because whether or not it meets the more subjective G11, it certainly meets G4, Regardless of whether G11 was valid, the speedy G11, the speedy deletion from mainspace should have been for G4, recreation of deleted article, because it does not meet the prior objections. We do not usually use G4 in Draft space, because the point of draft space is to get the article improved. I am not sure that it meets G11--the purpose behind writing the article was surely promotional, but the draft article was basically descriptive. There is no point moving it out of Draft, for it will surely be deleted in mainspace at AfD in either version even if it passes speedy. More to the point, however, is the question of whether you are in violation of the our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure. I ask because all your previously created articles have been either deleted as promotional/non notable, , except for Dreamcatcher (2016), which seems to have a confused history, with deletion tags having been removed, but which I have just nominated for G11 DGG ( talk ) 18:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply] Comment Reply What on earth makes you think I created Dreamcatcher(2016)? I requested a delete on it. And even asked some admin to help me with it. As I found the quint article to be written by the author herself.Bulle Shah (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply] I'll endorse the G11 in articlespace. The article had twice as many words describing the company's startup funding as for what it actually does, and half again as many about its competitors. Making the article neutral would have left it on the order of two and a half sentences long and, contra the claims above, the page got more promotional during the ten hours between being tagged and being deleted. The version deleted at AFD is worded differently, but makes all the same assertions almost point-for-point, and was better referenced besides; so - as DGG says - a G4 would have been completely justified too. —Cryptic 18:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply] Comment Reply So is it too much to ask for when I want to improve on my end and let this article be created in accordance with guidelines?Bulle Shah (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply] Also deleted today was a different version at UrbanClap Technologies, by the same user; which I've just salted to match the protection here. —Cryptic 18:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply] There was a version of it deleted at Urbanclap, too, in February, apparently without knowledge of the AFD. This one had the largest amount of usable text (though also the largest percentage of the article detailing its funding history). Seems they really want an article here. —Cryptic 05:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply] @Cryptic let's not rely too much on what Seems to you. Bulle Shah (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply] What on earth keeps a notable topic away from having a Wikipedia article? when it clearly passes WP:GNG.Bulle Shah (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply] There is nothing keeping an article about this buisness from beign created, provided it can be done neutrally, with solid independent sources, and without undue promotionalism. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply] The previous version, or at least its last revision, was perhaps not blatantly promotional, but at best it needed significant work. I would not oppose restoring it as a draft, but perhaps it might be better in this case to start over, again in Draft. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply] I requested an Admin to discuss on moving it to draft but I was ignored. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Athaenara I was trying to edit it to make it neutral but it was deleted like in a couple of hours and it left no room for me to edit the same. On the top of it, it was salted by the admin who paid no heed to my request for help. Nobody was in a mood to help but to excercise their powers. Bulle Shah (talk) 12:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply] I would at last like to request admins to move it to Draft Space and unsalt it so that I could improve it and get reviewed by an editor.Bulle Shah (talk) 12:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply] leave deleted Anyone interested in creating an article on this subject should start fresh from WP:RS so as to remove any possible taint of promotionalism left over from prior versions and with careful attention to not writing in a promotional tone from now on. If sources are abundant a clean slate would be best. Was there a reply on the question of possible WP:Paid? I don't recall seeing an answer.Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply] Not Paid sir, nobody has paid me for any contribution here. I hope that answers your question. And I have beein saying the same. To start a fresh by having it unsalted. Thank you. Bulle Shah (talk) 06:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply] Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Draft:UrbanClap is salted. That would be the place to attempt to compose an article that remedies the past problems. Once submitted to the AfC people, progress could perhaps be shown. I would start with a simple declarative statement without wordage like "offering" and "provides" and "constitutes". I would use fresh sources, if any, that treat subject in depth. Believe me, I know how hard that can be. Sometimes, the sourcing just is not adequate and the subject does not meet notability requirements. But that is a problem that needs to be remedied before the article can be.Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply] Thank you @Dlohcierekim this was the most helpful comment so far. Bulle Shah (talk) 17:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply] Please conclude been 7 days. Regards. cosnis 14:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC) my previous nickname was bulle shah — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coxnix (talk • contribs) 10:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

UrbanClap – No interest in undeleting or unsalting the affected pages. Nominator is advised to work in Draft:UrbanClap until such time as a notable, non-promotional article is produced. – Jclemens (talk) 05:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Promo Language Bulle Shah (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2017 (UTC) Comment It was the first time I had written on this title while being aware it's previous deletion records. The matter was with the language, my article was labeled as no different from the previous ones. But I have never seen how previous ones were because they were actually deleted. I wrote the article after having a good read around the other articles of the similar kind. I was ready to improvise but it was speedy deletion so I was left with no choice. The company passes WP:GNG as there are plenty of sources. And I believeBulle Shah (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC) just having a bad article written on a notable subject does not disqualify it from having a Wikipedia page.[reply]

Question and Comment This was present in slightly different form as a Draft and as an article, and it was speedy deleted from both. The speedy deletion from mainspace was unquestionably valid, because whether or not it meets the more subjective G11, it certainly meets G4, Regardless of whether G11 was valid, the speedy G11, the speedy deletion from mainspace should have been for G4, recreation of deleted article, because it does not meet the prior objections. We do not usually use G4 in Draft space, because the point of draft space is to get the article improved. I am not sure that it meets G11--the purpose behind writing the article was surely promotional, but the draft article was basically descriptive. There is no point moving it out of Draft, for it will surely be deleted in mainspace at AfD in either version even if it passes speedy. More to the point, however, is the question of whether you are in violation of the our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure. I ask because all your previously created articles have been either deleted as promotional/non notable, , except for Dreamcatcher (2016), which seems to have a confused history, with deletion tags having been removed, but which I have just nominated for G11 DGG ( talk ) 18:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Reply What on earth makes you think I created Dreamcatcher(2016)? I requested a delete on it. And even asked some admin to help me with it. As I found the quint article to be written by the author herself.Bulle Shah (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll endorse the G11 in articlespace. The article had twice as many words describing the company's startup funding as for what it actually does, and half again as many about its competitors. Making the article neutral would have left it on the order of two and a half sentences long and, contra the claims above, the page got more promotional during the ten hours between being tagged and being deleted. The version deleted at AFD is worded differently, but makes all the same assertions almost point-for-point, and was better referenced besides; so - as DGG says - a G4 would have been completely justified too. —Cryptic 18:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Reply So is it too much to ask for when I want to improve on my end and let this article be created in accordance with guidelines?Bulle Shah (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Also deleted today was a different version at UrbanClap Technologies, by the same user; which I've just salted to match the protection here. —Cryptic 18:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- There was a version of it deleted at Urbanclap, too, in February, apparently without knowledge of the AFD. This one had the largest amount of usable text (though also the largest percentage of the article detailing its funding history). Seems they really want an article here. —Cryptic 05:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Cryptic let's not rely too much on what Seems to you. Bulle Shah (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- What on earth keeps a notable topic away from having a Wikipedia article? when it clearly passes WP:GNG.Bulle Shah (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is nothing keeping an article about this buisness from beign created, provided it can be done neutrally, with solid independent sources, and without undue promotionalism. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The previous version, or at least its last revision, was perhaps not blatantly promotional, but at best it needed significant work. I would not oppose restoring it as a draft, but perhaps it might be better in this case to start over, again in Draft. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I requested an Admin to discuss on moving it to draft but I was ignored. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Athaenara I was trying to edit it to make it neutral but it was deleted like in a couple of hours and it left no room for me to edit the same. On the top of it, it was salted by the admin who paid no heed to my request for help. Nobody was in a mood to help but to excercise their powers. Bulle Shah (talk) 12:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would at last like to request admins to move it to Draft Space and unsalt it so that I could improve it and get reviewed by an editor.Bulle Shah (talk) 12:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
leave deleted Anyone interested in creating an article on this subject should start fresh from WP:RS so as to remove any possible taint of promotionalism left over from prior versions and with careful attention to not writing in a promotional tone from now on. If sources are abundant a clean slate would be best. Was there a reply on the question of possible WP:Paid? I don't recall seeing an answer.Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not Paid sir, nobody has paid me for any contribution here. I hope that answers your question. And I have beein saying the same. To start a fresh by having it unsalted. Thank you. Bulle Shah (talk) 06:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Draft:UrbanClap is salted. That would be the place to attempt to compose an article that remedies the past problems. Once submitted to the AfC people, progress could perhaps be shown. I would start with a simple declarative statement without wordage like "offering" and "provides" and "constitutes". I would use fresh sources, if any, that treat subject in depth. Believe me, I know how hard that can be. Sometimes, the sourcing just is not adequate and the subject does not meet notability requirements. But that is a problem that needs to be remedied before the article can be.Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Dlohcierekim this was the most helpful comment so far. Bulle Shah (talk) 17:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please conclude been 7 days. Regards. cosnis 14:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC) my previous nickname was bulle shah — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coxnix (talk • contribs) 10:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.