Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ADilbert/Eazdeals

 __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. ‑Scottywong | [converse] || 03:58, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

User:ADilbert/Eazdeals

 * – (View MfD)

Untouched since 2009 by an editor with no edits anywhere but to this page, which appears to be purely promotional. Frietjes (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete if this survives a G11 nomination. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've re-opened this MfD per my comments here. Courtesy ping for participants: @DESiegel, @Cryptic, @SportingFlyer, @RoySmith, @Hut 8.5, @Robert McClenon, @Lightburst, @WilyD, @SilkTork, @Pppery -  F ASTILY   02:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep All promotional content has been removed from the page. This business does appear to exist,. It may not be or become notable, but it could be. It is properly marked as a draft, and therefor should not be indexed by any search engines, nor mistaken by anyone for a finished article. There seems to be no remaining policy-based reason for removal. Mere lapse of time is not such a reason in userspace. If anyone can find appropriate sources, this could become an article. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete At the time of nomination, it clearly failed WP:G11, was created by a user who has made only one edit to the encyclopaedia, used an incorrect logo, and has been abandoned for so long it is unlikely to ever be developed further. SportingFlyer  T · C  03:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete as abandoned, without prejudice to re-creation. I fail to see the benefit to the encyclopedia of scrubbing this page to be free of promotional material.  Do we really need to have immortal drafts for every company that is known to exist?  This draft was immortal for ten years because it was in user space without an AFC tag and not in draft space.  What is the value of rescuing it until the 2038 catastrophe?  If someone finds sources to establish corporate notability, they can create it again. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete. There is zero RS on this company and thus per WP:DMFD has no chance of ever being an article.  However, worse, is it also likely that this might(?) be a scam website and there are disturbing links on this such as this .  Therefore, 's original U5 was probably correct per NOTWEBHOST (and a few other CSD criteria).  Britishfinance (talk) 09:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:STALEDRAFT#6: "of no potential". Given that there are no reliable sources commenting in depth on this company, and there is very little information to be found anywhere (some complaints from 2008 that the website delivered poor quality goods), and the website appears to be dead, with no activity for several years according to webstats sites, there is no potential for an article to be created. SilkTork (talk) 10:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete stale draft written ten years ago by someone with no other edits for the apparent purpose of promoting the subject. I don't think it has any chance whatsoever of becoming even vaguely suitable for mainspace, a Google search for the subject finds very few hits and none that would be remotely suitable as sources. I'd be willing to reconsider if someone who knows what they're doing thinks it's notable, but it doesn't look like anyone does.  Hut 8.5  18:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a businessdirectory, and trying to use it as one in user space is no better than doing the same in article space. DGG ( talk ) 20:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As a general rule I'd say that userspace material that isn't being used for disruption, should be left well alone, as deleting material out of someone's userspace is quite violative. However in this particular case, the amount of time that's passed since this draft was abandoned should make a deletion fairly uncontroversial.  I'm unclear on why anyone feels the need to patrol long-inactive editors' userspace; who are these shadowy userspace police?  I do feel that having a DRV and then an MFD about it is a monumental expenditure of volunteer time on this matter for very little benefit.—S Marshall T/C 02:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point about the "shadowy userspace police." What do you mean by DRV, though? Doug Mehus T · C  03:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:DRV is the standard shortcut to deletion review.—S Marshall T/C 15:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. WP:STALE requires userspace drafts to be deleted when the editor is "reasonably inactive." That's not so clear, but seeing the editor created a single account, made a single edit of this draft in 2009, and then left, this is remarkably similar to this MfD, which I proposed last month and which closed as delete. made a good point in that discussion that editing history comes in to play and it's very similar to an employee who departs their employer.--Doug Mehus  T · C  03:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nom and above delete voters. Wikipedia doesn't need decade long abandoned junk. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:05, 17 November 2019 (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.