Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Photomyne

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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Photomyne

Note This nomination does not appear to have been listed at MfD. I am listing it now, please consider the time of listing when closing. Monty ₈₄₅ 00:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only 1 review so far but see this and this and note how the Draft itself has not changed at all, there's enough to suggest there are no conceivable improvements, especially beyond the fact these sources exist only as PR announcements; the history shows only cosmetic changes such as sorting or other minor changes, and there's been no significance in our policies. SwisterTwister talk 21:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Wall Street Journal and a TechCrunch article hardly qualify as "PR announcements". The draft hasn't even been submitted for another review; there's no requirement that authors improve it within a month after a review. Huon (talk) 11:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 1 month to edit else deletion? It has the possibility for notability, just needs to be sourced correctly. Acalycine (talk) 10:58, 13 March 2017 (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.