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. Ricky81682 (talk) 12:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Carolyn Pollack Jewelry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This draft is being repeatedly resubmitted with only minor improvements. There is no evidence to think that it will get better. If the author really is able to improve it in seven days, then they can do that. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete to stop the resubmissions of unsuitable content. Legacypac (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep to allow user the opportunity to fix the article - effort being made. Hi, I'm one of the main contributors to this article. I've actually been working pretty hard to improve the article with a lot of reference desk help. My improvements may seem minor, but I've actually been trying to improve the page for acceptance for awhile. With my first submission, it was a newbie error of reading like an advertisement. I talked to chat, got some recommendations, and then resubmitted. Then I had another decline regarding references. I actively began looking for better references, thought I improved the page, and then resubmitted. I had some press releases as references which I didn't realize, removed the suggested references by Lamona, and then submitted. With fewer references, there was a discussion on the notability. Once again, I spent quite a while with chat trying to verify that my references were okay and then tried to resubmit. I was then declined for having a paragraph that didn't seem related, I edited and completely readjusted the paragraph as suggested and then resubmitted. Lamona then came back saying it read too promotional and that the connection between somethings wasn't clear. I then went to chat again, asked if it was okay to restructure an article to improve it (by changing the article to be Relios, Inc. instead of Carolyn Pollack Jewelry since the notability was for Relios and its brands). I restructure the article and it's paragraphs and added more reference that I thought were appropriate and allowed and resubmitted it thinking it would be good. I can understand how the resubmits look like I'm not putting a lot of work into the article, but I'm actually trying and using Wikipedia reference. I've been trying to get other editors to look at the page for suggestions and it's either "Follow the editors suggestions and remove this" or "Try making the article like this". I thought it was okay to make the suggested improvements and then resubmit as long as I was actively trying to improve the article. From what this article started as, I think I've shown that I'm trying to make improvements by making the adjustments made my editors and consulting with chat for other eyes. The resubmissions have been because I thought I had improved the article as suggested, not because I think this article is just perfect and everyone else is flawed. I'm actively trying and I think that should count for something and not be given a limit of 7 days. Wikipedia is for the growing of this encyclopedic community with resources for people like me who are starting with their first contribution and may be getting stuck in some places. That I'm trying to help with that growth and using those resources should show that I'm not interested in putting up poor content on Wikipedia, I'm just trying to contribute too. I won't resubmit until I've gotten more help/suggestions from chat, but I did want to explain this from a new contributor POV.

Shenlyism (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After discussing with chat and other editors, I will give it one more go with improved sources and editing within the 7 days Robert suggested. After, I'll ask other editors if they would review (without submitting it again) and if it's still not up to par, I'll let it go until there are better references to improve quality. If possible, however, I'd still like it to not be deleted so that I have more time to make those improvements or get other editors to join in and make those improvements. If that's not allowed, I understand. Shenlyism (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as long as good-faith efforts to improve are being made. DES ^(talk) 00:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above comments from a major contributor and allow more time for improvements. The draft was recently moved to a new title, and it has realized recent copy editing. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:14, 20 February 2016 (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.