Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Athard/dice.com




 * 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  Keep something lame from CBW 01:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Athard/dice.com
Advertising for a possibly-notable company; nothing salvageable here. Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  04:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Advertising? Seems more like proper sandbox usage from here. Collect (talk) 14:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom unless verifiable references from reliable sources are used inline and it gets less promotional.  — Jeff G. ツ 05:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Clear Keep We give people more than 1 day to work on a userified article! Usually it's more like 6 months. On a side note Dice.com probably is notable... doesn't anyone remember the TV ads? Possibly encourage the user to move it to incubation instead. Gigs (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello. Could someone tell me why the dice.com article is up for deletion? I honestly have no idea. Thanks. Athard (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The nominator believes that this article is not salvageable, and that it is solely used for promoting its topic, and further notes that the company is not notable according to our standards. This debate is for editors to agree with or dispute that rationale. After a few days, an admin will come along and determine where consensus lies. That said... UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 20:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The draft was started at 17:08 UTC on 26 February 2010, and does not appear to constitute any overt breach of policy that would demand deletion (BLP, for example). The tone is a bit spammy, but that's why we have userspace drafts in the first place, for article development. There is also no evidence that the subject is unsourceable; another good reason why we permit time to develop such articles. If it's been there for a while with no improvement, fine - delete. But it's been a week now, less than that. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 20:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I reworked the lead a bit, trying to make it a bit more neutral. A hint - don't describe someone as the leading this or that. Rather, just say what they are - a job-hunting site for IT professionals - and then mention that someone else said that they were the leading whatever. The history section could be condensed to a paragraph - The company began operations in 1990, launched the Dice.com site in 1996, were acquired by somebody in 2001, restructured in 2003, and so on. Then, mention "Dice.com has acquired several competing companies, including ClearanceJobs, eFinancialCareers, and others." Boom, there's your history section - it reads less like the company's website and more like an actual history. Good work otherwise, though - it's a great start. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 20:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the comments and tips. I have reworked the article as per your pointers and made it less spammy. let me know if this works. Thank you. Athard (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Move to mainspace I have rewritten and expanded the article to comply with Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies. Spanning over a page about the history of Dice.com, this entry in Google Books demonstrates that it is notable. I believe that this userspace draft is now ready for the mainspace. If the consensus is to move the draft to the mainspace, I ask that the closing admin undelete File:DiceLogo H.gif, which was removed from the draft and later deleted because non-free images do not belong in the userspace. Cunard (talk) 08:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, but in userspace It's still pretty promotional and I think it needs a bit more work before being moved to a real page. As a side note, I'm new around here, but it seems to me that a page put up in userspace ought not be subject to immediate deletion--seems like it would be more civil to give a warning of deletion and leave the page up for at least a week to give the user a chance to make changes and respond. FWIW. Nuujinn (talk) 16:11, 6 March 2010 (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.