Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Eliveliv/Enter your new article name here

 __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  soft delete. There's agreement that it would be preferable for the editor to return and edit it again, but there's no policy rationale expressed why blanking is preferable to deletion and a REFUND possibility. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Eliveliv/Enter your new article name here


Clearly self promotion, not likely to go anywhere. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No, not so clearly just self promotion, not likely but possible to be worked up to an article on an historic family company ("Glick Family Investments") with lots of references. Do not move to mainspace without an interested champion.  Replace with Inactive userpage blanked due to inactivity and TPH's valid concerns.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as IMHO self promotion, Pointless blanking when you can just outright delete it ... If the user wants to rework it they can go to WP:UNDELETE. – Davey 2010 Talk 01:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If the user wants it and can go to WP:UNDELETE, that is how blanking works. It should only be deleted if undeletion should be refused.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What's the point in blanking something that won't ever be edited again ? .... It may aswell be deleted. – Davey 2010 Talk 02:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks "probably not sufficiently notable", looking at all the links pulled up by the find sources template, but not definitely not. I disagree that it is promotion, because concentrates on history, not on services for sale.  It would be a good thing for the user to return and edit it again.  Until then, blank it.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:43, 7 April 2016 (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.