Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:CubeSpawn/CubeSpawn




 * 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. @harej 01:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

User:CubeSpawn/CubeSpawn
fails WP:SPAM. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 00:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I see no attempt to discuss this with the user, to inform him about what constitutes acceptable practices here,.   DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with DGG re the lack of discussion. In addition this sounds like a project worthy of inclusion, rather than one seen as spam. Finally this sort of WP:BITE treatment is a great way to discourage new editors with useful contributions to offer. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, so WP:PROMOTION wouldn't apply either? Sorry, but at least WP:COI applies, if nothing else.  ArcAngel (talk) (review) 03:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I don't believe spam or promotion apply in any way sufficient to warrant deletion, or this heavy handed approach. It needs copywriting, not extermination: I want to read this article! If you've been following RepRap & similar projects, CubeSpawn sounds like a really interesting development of those, that we ought to be covering.
 * COI & group user names certainly: but that's a regular issue where new WP editors with the best of faith don't understand our arcane policies. We have to be very careful here to welcome such people, not to drive them away. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Wait for discussion at WP:COIN. I would suggest withdrawing this premature nomination. No prejudice against speedy re-nominating if the COI discussion is unsuccessful. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment hi, as far as I know your COI may technically apply, but since no-one else really knows anything about this matter to any depth, I'm at a loss as to who will submit accurate information about the project, I have attempted to follow the the RepRap article for structure and content and I have to assume someone close to that project must have been a primary contributor there as well - though I claim no actual knowledge about that - I have had some difficulty with the arcane wiki text formatting - and unless I'm completely mistaken - this partial article is not publicly visible yet, so no harm done. Since there is uncertainty about the viability of the posting - I withdraw from any further action at this time - I have inadequate time to master the intricacies of this groups rules, the formatting markup, and my shaky writing skills, and so, leave it in the hands of "those who know" sorry to have troubled you, I really rely on the wiki for useful information. Perhaps as the project progresses someone else can step up and write about it. Thanks for your time. CubeSpawn (talk) 04:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep COI does not apply really to userspace (most users have a built-in COI when writing in userspace about their own work), and the user appears to be doing his darndest to comply with the maze set up on WP for any such articles. I see, in fact, nothing objectionable here. Collect (talk) 12:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. As has been said, we shouldn't jump on newbies creating userspace drafts unless it's more promotional than this.  It's obvious he intends to create an article, not an advertisement.  Gigs (talk) 14:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Good-faith creation of a userspace draft that doesn't violate WP:FAKEARTICLEl creator is striving to create an article, not an ad. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:32, 16 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.