The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nom withdrawn‎ and it doesn't seem like the only other non-keep (Timtrent) actually wants to challenge notability, merely give time for improvement, so I'm closing this per SK1 for now, with no prejudice against speedy renomination if anyone does decide that they believe the company is non-notable. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samana Bay Company of Santo Domingo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article was created, moved to draftspace, then moved back to article space by the page creator before a review occurred. I was advised to start a debate here by @Jéské Couriano:. DeemDeem52 (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Dominican Republic. DeemDeem52 (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Note for posterity that I don't actually believe that the article should be deleted; I think notability is proven by the available sources, as well as these which I found myself: ^[1][2][3][4] I am mainly putting this here because I understand that it is policy for controversial moves to draftspace. DeemDeem52 (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @DeemDeem52, The only need to start an AFD is if you think it should be deleted. AFC is optional and articles do not need to be reviewed by the AFC volunteers, except in certain cases of COI or a history of undesirable content creation. So if you do not think this should be deleted and is demonstrably notable you can withdraw this nomination. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I see; the reason I included this in AfD was because I was advised to here. What should be the proper process for returning this to draftspace? DeemDeem52 (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify: The history shows this to be a disputed draftification. It appears to be susceptible to improvement, though I have not determined its true notability. Draft space gives those interested the time and peace and quiet to see if the can be achieved 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Draftify: Searching for info on this, it clearly meets GNG and there is lot of room to expand (which might be best to do in draft space instead of keeping it as a stub). —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, while a little rushed, notability is demonstrated here and while AfC or draftify is preferential when an article isn't suitable for mainspace, there is nothing inherently wrong with this stub. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 20:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw: The article has now been reviewed, so I don't think there's really any more reason to keep this up for draftification. (I think the relevant policy would now require a speedy keep from someone who's not me, though.) DeemDeem52 (talk) 18:35, 30 May 2024 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.