Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:BrandManager NB/astonishresults




 * 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. NAC. Timotheus Canens (talk) 06:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

User:BrandManager NB/astonishresults
Userpage being utilized as a promotional tool for a company, complete with spam links. Fails WP:NOTADVERTISING. -- sixty nine  • spill it •  22:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Where is the evidence that this is promotional?  Triplestop  x3  22:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree, of course, that Wikipedia is not for advertising; however, this page doesn't look blatantly promotional to me. On the contrary, it looks like a userspace draft (tagged as such) that was created just a few days ago and edited by the creator just hours ago. Let's assume good faith and give the editor a chance to work on the draft and move it to the mainspace. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Remove all external links, or Delete if the pages exists for no reason other than to host the external links. Live external links on wikipedia, even in userspace, are an excellent way to get your site upranked by the search engines.  This page is promotional, even if unintentionally.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We use rel=nofollow, it shouldn't boost the rank too much. Gigs (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's true that nofollow is a strong counter-measure for Linkspam, but it is not absolute, and is not universally respected. If this page were in mainspace, I would say it has too many gratuitous embedded external links (see External links).  Assuming that this page is, as claimed, intended to be worked up into a mainspace article, and that there are concerns about the promotional aspect of the external links, at a minimum, the external links should be broken.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per A Stop at Willoughby and unlink the insurance agency names in the section "Astonish Results Clients". Several of the external links in the article (e.g., those pointing to articles in journals and magazines) are acceptable and simply need to be converted into wikilinks or footnotes. Except for the external links to insurance agency websites, which are neither necessary nor appropriate in the long term, it is difficult to differentiate this page from a valid userspace draft (and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, there is little reason for us to assume that it is anything other than that). –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 23:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a recently-created draft that is still being worked on. If it needs improvements, such as removal of inappropriate external links, then by all means improve it, but deletion would be premature. --RL0919 (talk) 00:43, 12 January 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.