Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ESCapade/Zenfolio




 * 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. @harej 23:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

User:ESCapade/Zenfolio
Promotional article about non-notable firm based on company press releases and the like. Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  18:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

*Noindex, blank and keep The company appears to might meet notability standards, so a valid article is indeed might be possible. One month isn't too long for a prospective article to sit in userspace, 6 months to a year seems to be consensus roughly. We can blank it and noindex it to prevent it from serving as an ad. Gigs (talk) 20:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as advertising in user space. The history of the actual article shows that it has been deleted five times so far. If the article was again placed in main space, as is the stated intent on its talk page, it would once again be a CSD candidate as advertising, a non-notable company, and an article previously deleted from the main space via AFD. This user is trying to recreate the article in basically the exact same version as before. On the draft article's talk page, the user's talk page, and elsewhere, it has been explained by several people why this article doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion. No serious attempts have been made to address those issues. I also notified the user almost a month ago on his talk page that an advert in user space was eligible for deletion. There have been no substantive changes to the page since then, and there is still no indication of notability. There's no reason to keep this in user space any longer. --   Transity  ( talk &bull;  contribs ) 18:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's got one mention in one source (other than the company website and company press releases). That one source is all it had last time when it was deleted at AFD. So I'm not sure that I see how it meets notability standards. But that aside, what do you mean by "blank it"? Do you mean blank the page of all content? If so, I'm perfectly fine with that as an alternative to MFD deletion. --  Transity  ( talk &bull;  contribs ) 21:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you may be right. There's some trivial coverage here,  Is this a press release?  It appears to be a real review. Gigs (talk) 01:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ethioplanet is a webforum, not a reliable source. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  01:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears to be a news site to me. It's reproducing the article from ePhotoZine, which appears to have some editorial standards. Gigs (talk) 01:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Take a closer look at the ethioplanet main page; it's a "you too can be an published writer in the Interwebz" website. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  19:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have withdrawn my initial comments. Gigs (talk) 03:05, 23 September 2009 (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.