Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Pulse Fitness

 __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. Ultimately the keep votes have little substance. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 11:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Pulse Fitness

 * Killiondude (talk) 07:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Killiondude (talk) 07:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

This is mostly an advertisement, with several declines. It does not have any notability, and would most likely be deleted if it were sent to AfD as an article. The G11 speedy deletion was declined by Insertcleverphrasehere. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Reject MfD nomination. Explanations to the author have been inadequate.  User talk:Jamesconvey contains no human text.  Draft talk:Pulse Fitness is redlinked.  AfC needs to sort out a position as to minimal newcomer treatment, and what to do when a draft has no hope, and to not offload their failures onto another process. My advice to the author is to never use AfC or Draftspace again.  Instead, get up to speed by first improving existing content.  Note that if your company is not worth a mention on any other existing article, it is not worth its own article.  See WP:ORPHAN.  Don't start by writing about your own company or yourself, but do write on topics around yourself.  For example, your drafts claim to notability is "the industry's first self-powered cardio vascular equipment featuring a colour TFT display".  Is there any coverage of this sort of thing already in mainspace that could be improved?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete AfC's process to remove unsuitable drafts is either wait for G13, use another CSD, or send to MfD. Here we are. It's not suitable as a topic. The new user is here to promote their business. Delete the draft. Legacypac (talk) 17:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I’m happy to see it WP:G11-ed if that applies. Seeing it at MfD implies G11 does not apply. Case-by-case MfDing of non-speediable Drafts is hopelessly inefficient. I have suggested a number of procedural improvements to the AfC, but AfC is still stuck in their rut. They would subsume MfD for their own cleanup. Better to shutdown AfC for the non-autoconfirmed. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Nom says the tried G11 and it was declined User:SmokeyJoe so bring it here is quite appropriate as an exception/declined CSD. Legacypac (talk) 21:16, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I saw the G11 decline and agree with the decline. This one is not G11-able. It is not complete promotion. The author needs (needed) help, which he didn’t get. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - As one of the editors who declined it, I would fully support deletion. It's a completely promotional article on a gym business that just isn't notable. One other quick point; there really is a myth around hapless newbies being bitten by unhelpful AfC'ers. Having done a little bit now, I'm amazed at the number of drafts which are wholly promotional. These guys neither want nor need help as they have no interest in building an encyclopedia. Their sole interest is in using Wikipedia as a platform to promote themselves or their commercial interests. KJP1 (talk) 16:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If that were true, you could hit G11. You can't for this one.  The inability of AfC to filter the pure promoters from the more innocent is not good. This company has multiple weak sourceable claims to notability, it is not clear cut.  I am not a fan of these company articles, but many exist in mainspace.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I get you have some sort of beef with AfC, but if you seriously believe that the creator of this page, with a declared CoI and whose connection to the company can easily be found, is here to build an encyclopedia rather than to promote the commercial interests of his employer, you and I are on different planets. KJP1 (talk) 07:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think AfC is a net negative. But ok, some think it is worth it, but it gets a bit much when its mess spills over. This author should not have been invited to write this page, but when he did, AfC should have welcomed him, and explained things more directly. The problem here today is that we have a bitten newcomer and a page no worse than so many others, and no clear rationale for its deletion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "a page no worse than so many others" - not much of a reason to keep, in my book. KJP1 (talk) 10:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I never said “keep”. My dream if for AfC to fully bake their processes. Objective criteria for what to delete, and when. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep and return to AfC so that the author may receive the welcome and support which should have been offered in the first place. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 07:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete not suitable as a topic, promotional, just no. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as promo, Better off blown up and rewritten. – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 00:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Hi All, apologies if I'm not writing this in the correct area. I am the author of the Pulse Fitness article which I've been trying to put together to record our company's history/achievements and make the information available in an easy to understand form.  Admittedly, it does sound a bit promotional, but I see other companies and some of our competitors have similar pages already published on Wikipedia.  I think it also sounds a bit promotional because I've tried to write it based on articles that I could find to reference elsewhere on the web.  If any of you can give me a pointer on how to make this page successful, I'd really appreciate it.  Also, if I'm asking this question in the wrong place, please let me know. Jamesconvey (talk) 10:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:COI, Also it's not about who has articles .. it's all about WP:notability and who's notable for an article, Because you work for PF the content will always be promotional because you obviously work for them - it needs to be written by a neutral editor (IE someone not related to the company). – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 12:35, 2 January 2018 (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.