Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Applied Systems

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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: delete. I see no need to SALT this or the mainspace page which was deleted in 2007 and never recreated. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Applied Systems


Promotional article G11ed on July 31 and recreated. Sending it to MfD because it isn't quite the level I feel comfortable with tagging as G11 on a draft, but it is still unduely promotional and unlikely to ever be notable. Created by an employee of the company, and recreated by them after deletion. I would suggest salting both this and the mainspace title given the recreation after an extensive explanation was given to them about our policies. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * keep Draft space is where connected contributors are supposed to work. If the draft is promotional, it can be fixed by editing. If the draft fails to show that the subject is notable, then it will not be accepted at AfC unless and until it is improved to demonstrate notability.
 * Nom has presented no evidence that the subject is not notable, or is unlikely to ever be notable, without which there is no justification for deletion from draft, let alone salting. The draft has been submitted once, which may have been ill-considered, but hardly constitutes tendentious editing. If submitted repeatedly without improvement, it can be renominated for deletion. If everyone gives up on improving it, it will be G13'd. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll go in depth further: this would likely be G11ed if I wasn't more conservative on that than other editors, but the fundamental promotional tone and spamming of links makes cleanup there unlikely. In terms of notability: the company in all of its recent incarnations has been a non-notable subsidiary of much more significant owners. Any information about the company is much more appropriate for those articles if it warrants any space in Wikipedia, and none of the current text is useful for merging. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete, per Tony. He's right about being conservative on the CSD - I think I might have G11'd that. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 01:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per above, I certainly would have tagged that. &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  06:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 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.