User talk:Qcpu/Quezon City Polytechnic University

Not promotion. Newimpartial (talk) 05:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note the editor name matches the school name. Obvious candidate for tagging as promotional content. Legacypac (talk) 04:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, there is no policy against taking a username that is the initials of your school. Nor is the content in any way evidently WP:SPAM. Newimpartial (talk) 05:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Universities especially are almost universaly known by their initials. Violates WP:ISU and especially given the editor has basically only participated by creating two userpages about QCPU WP:ORGNAME applies. I could have this user instantly blocked, but they are long since inactive so that is a bit of a waste of time. Legacypac (talk) 05:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is violating the username policy grounds for deleting the draft, though? That's the part I don't understand - the draft itself doesn't smell like WP:SPAM. Newimpartial (talk) 06:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently your definition of SPAM excludes a LOT of promotional stuff. This could go Speedy "G11: Promotional user page under a promotional user name". Now because this is a university and they are usually Notable, we might make an exception here, but an organization based username writing about the organization is G11. Legacypac (talk) 06:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, except "promotional user page under a promotional user name" isn't actually part of G11. So where do I find this secret code? ;) Newimpartial (talk) 06:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is the short description in Twinkle. There is another popup longer version I can't copy paste in as well that says that in more words. All G reasons apply regardless of namespace. See WP:G11 and the underlying policy at WP:NOTADVERTISING which says "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to 'usernames, articles, categories, files, talk page discussions, templates, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for:..." Legacypac (talk) 07:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But the wikipedia content guideline WP:SPAM, which WP:G11 references, doesn't mention usernames at all. Are you are that you (and Twinkle) are not mistaken, in deleting an article on the basis of its username? Newimpartial (talk) 07:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I highlight the relevant core policy and you can't understand it or you jump to another policy page. Wikipedia is filled with policy and procedure here there and everywhere. The absence of something on one page does not trump another policy on another page that is directly on point.

For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Vuemed/sandbox/VUEMED,_Inc.&action=edit&redlink=1

I'm done. You lack WP:CIR Legacypac (talk) 09:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Newimpartial, there is a rule against corporate usernames, or names which could be confused with corporate usernames. We block them & if we think they're in good faith, advise them to take another name that indicates an individual. If the content is promotional, we delete it. It's one of the standard user warnings and block reasons. See WP:USERNAME I and most admins have done this hundreds of times. The justification is that, in our experience, 95% of them will be writing spam. Please realize how dangerous spam is--if we become a vehicle for advertising, we're no better than Google. DGG ( talk ) 17:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I get that, I really do. I also get that the draft article here was no substitute for the mainspace article. What I don't get, is that it was WP:SPAM - it read like a normal university stub to me. I am not trying to be difficult. And I don't see how the username makes the article spam. Newimpartial (talk) 17:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If XYZ organization sets up XYZ account and writes a page about XYZ it is SPAM and subject to speedy deletion. I also expect this page is copyvio and its not in the form of a good article and its covered in mainspace. In the end I generally choose the reason that is the fastest to verify for the reviewing admin. I see that user Qcpu is now indef blocked by another Admin. It's a spam account. Legacypac (talk) 18:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)=[reply]

I understand that; I just don't understand how, in the case of a university, you get from XYZ account backwards to it belonging to XYZ organization and forward to the page being spam. Especially since we are talking about initials. But in the particular case, yes, it was a spam account and yes, the article needed to be deleted as a redundant draft. I just haven't seen any kind of source for articles being deleted on the basis of usernames, anywhere in policy. I most certainly understand that you say so. Newimpartial (talk) 20:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]