Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Vyomnagrani/eInfochips

User:Vyomnagrani/eInfochips

Declining db-spam and taking to MfD; I'm not sure what to do and need advice, and there's no harm in waiting 7 days because it's {{noindex}}'d in a user subpage. The page has been deleted from mainspace at least 3 times, twice as A7, but there's a lot of information here; perhaps the creator will work with us. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 01:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Merciless delete as the one who tagged it with {{db-spam}}. Alexius08 (talk) 03:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delete looks too much like an advertisement. Promotional language, use of our. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Per "rationale" used for every deletion -- there is no requirement that userspace only be used for mainspace articles. I would suggest we ask that the overt external links be removed, as I suspect would be done, and be done with this. Collect (talk) 11:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, but there's a requirement that they not be used for advertising, per WP:CSD#G11. I believe that's what we're trying to figure out. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Concur that it shouldn't be used for advertising, but it is plainly listed as a user page and isn't linked from anywhere, so I'd be hard pressed for anyone to think this was a "real" article on Wikipedia. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
• delete207.237.33.36 (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep actively being worked on/improved. Valid place to do this. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Not since December (except for an IP fixing a single year). That's one of the questions I'd like to get a sense of ... how long do you all want to wait before we give up? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Personally, I think 6 months is appropriate, though that isn't officially codified anywhere. It isn't doing any harm right now and the IP may have been the primary user editing it from a place where logging in isn't an option (I know I've done that...). FWIW, I'm going to remove the spamish links. As far as I'm concerned, it is a sandbox to do with as the user wishes. The references need to be improved in order to be an article, but it is fine here now. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
      • But from a user page is not to be used for: advertising or promotion of a business or organization unrelated to Wikipedia (such as purely commercial sites or referral links, or extensive self-promotional material that is unrelated to activities as a Wikipedian 207.237.33.36 (talk) 01:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
        • This isn't purely commercial as it is also informative. Purely commercial would be trying to sell something and providing contact information for a product. The intent of this page is informative in nature and pretty well worded. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
          • I'd say I think you need to review the article in question again in more detail and with a more open mind, as I just did. The entire article relies on a single websource, and even down to the wordage of the intro it reads to me as a blatant advert. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 04:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
          • I'm also surprised about your attitude, considering your vote above regarding User:Zurvivor. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 04:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
            1. It isn't an article, yet. Just a draft. The same rules don't apply to drafts.
            2. If it is being used for advertising, it's being done in the stupidest way possible (burying an article under a user page)
            3. As for comparing to Zurvivor, his/hers is a page about their personal progress in a game. There is nothing about that that cold possibly ever be an article. This one is not the same. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
            • About Zurvivor, you wrote, "If this was an interest of the user and they contributed other things to Wikipedia, I would see no reason to keep it, but they are abusing the user page as a place to put things online with little contribution." I see this as the same situation. It might be stupid to advertise here, but that's what's being done...using a user page for advert purposes while contributing nothing else. "The same rules don't apply to drafts"? WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox clearly says the guidelines applies to all content hosted in Wikipedia, including userpages. Anyway, look, I'm not going to continue...we've both made our points and opinions known and we've both been civil. We just disagree. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 03:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
              • Agree that we disagree. I also think that guidance could be a tad more specific on the subject like "if the page hasn't been edited in X months..." In any case, we'll see where it goes. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
                • Concur -- but when I suggested such, there was no support. In one case here, three years was specifically deemed "not too long" for an active user. I am unsure as to what IP207's rationale for deletion is, other than disagreeing with you on another MfD? I am rather sure many userpages do not have even a single "source" at all. Collect (talk) 11:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)