Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Chasetwomey/Zoro Tools

 __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  keep. Userspace drafts are noindexed, this is not promotional enough to be speedy-deleted as an advertisement, and we do not need to to make notability judgements on new drafts in userspace. JohnCD (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Chasetwomey/Zoro Tools
There's no way this will ever reach main space. There have been no news stories written about this company, no mentions in books, not even any mention on blogs. Google hits are all adverts, profiles, job ads or mirror sites. There's no point leaving this here, it simply functions as a rather ineffective advert. Fences &amp;  Windows  04:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. This is spam.   Corvus cornix  talk  06:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Applying the same criteria to a user subpage clearly marked as a draft as we would to an article page is highly unfair. The page is unindexed, does not contain any blatantly promotional material, and has been around for less than two days. I find this attempt to eradicate the article represents a total failure to assume good faith.-- K orr u ski Talk 14:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep has been noindexed since its creation. A broadly informative article with tone issues that need to be worked on is precisely why we have userspace drafts. This was tagged for speedy within 3 minutes of its creation when its draft status is clearly not in dispute. -- ۩ M ask  14:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. WP:BITE --E♴ (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Treatment of the user is indeed bitey: I see a usertalk page full of obnoxious templates and not a single message from a human explaining the actual problem. But similarly, even given AGF towards the user, as they're new we shouldn't expect them to know about notability.  And if Fences' finding is correct that no adequate sourcing exists about this company, then there's no reason to accept an insufficiently sourced article into mainspace followed by having another deletion discussion about it.  What should happen is someone should chat politely with the user about notability and ask what sorts of sources s/he intends to use in the article, with the request that they either give some reasonable evidence that such sourcing at least exists, or else that they be understanding if the draft is deleted at the end of this MFD.  They are of course welcome to recreate the draft afterwards, if suitable sourcing is located.  NOTWEBHOST applies to all user content whether indexed or not.  71.141.88.54 (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Where is the criterion for keeping advertising in user space?  Corvus cornix  talk  06:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep and educate. Definitely bitey, hostile, and... you want to clip wings? No, this will never be an article, but this might be an editor. Shenme (talk) 08:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. You all want to keep an article that can never be sourced? To what purpose? WP:BITE and WP:AGF doesn't mean that we keep material like this. WP:AGF gets quoted far too often, try reading WP:AAGF for a rebuttal of your WP:VAGUEWAVE. I think editors !voting keep here are grandstanding rather than applying policy. I see no comments at User talk:Chasetwomey from any of you lot either, you're probably too busy chastising me to think of it. Fences  &amp;  Windows  16:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not 'grandstanding', thanks. I am saying that making a decision on what cannot/will not be a notable article before it is even in mainspace, and within a few days of its creation, is not in any way in accordance with policy. I am not sure why you think that my request to assume good faith is a 'vaguewave' but since I obviously need to clarify: when one editor is noisily saying 'this is spam' and 'this is advertising' it is perfectly reasonable to request that they assume good faith. That is what the policy is there for. Is the context in which I am applying WP:AGF clear now, or do you still consider this to be a vaguewave?-- K orr u ski Talk 18:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Spam is not just in articlespace. Spam is routinely removed from User space all the time.  None of you is addressing how this is anything other than spam, you're just tossing around AGF and BITE.  What about assuming good faith towards those of us who don't want to allow spam to be the be-all and end-all of User space.  Where does it say that people can keep spam in their User space?   Corvus cornix  talk  21:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Corvus, I can't think what to say on the subject of the spam except what I've said twice on the AN/I discussion and at least once here: I see no evidence of spam, merely a highly incomplete attempt at a factual article. You can disagree with me on that if you like, but your suggestion that I am 'not addressing how this is anything other than spam' is clearly failing to actually listen to what I've said. For your part, you still don't seem to have offered any evidence for why this is blatant spam.-- K orr u ski Talk 23:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I must be living in a parallel universe, one in which advertising in User space isn't spam, and one where an unsourced accusation that someone is a porn star is not an attack. Has Wikipedia changed its rules and not told me?  I am confused.  There used to be rules.  Now it's the Wild Wild West, where everything goes.   Corvus cornix  talk  07:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Right. I'll try this one last time, and then I'm going to give up and focus on something else for the sake of my sanity. Instead of repeating ad nauseum that 'this is spam and we delete spam', can you explain how you know that this is spam/advertising and not a legitimate but doomed attempt to create an article? It's not at all certain in my view, so let's just assume some good faith instead of rushing to alienate yet another new editor.-- K orr u ski Talk 08:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No indication of what makes this company unique or notable. No indication of reliable sources.  No history of the company to indicate why it is different from other companies which do the same thing.  Nothing but the name of the CEO, the company's website, and a bald statement of what it is.   Corvus cornix  talk  18:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as spam. This would be A7 in mainspace. I'd suggest it go to the incubator, but it is a hopeless case. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Keep Not a very strong case for calling it commercial spam, so I discount that one. Excessively puffed? Nope.  WP:BITE? yep. Clear case. Ged UK has it right on this one for sure.  If it gets orphaned for six months, then simple delete.  Collect (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2011 (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.