Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gutsalo/Corporate Suites


 * 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--Aervanath (talk) 06:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Gutsalo/Corporate Suites
See rationale at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Vyomnagrani/eInfochips. A few of the references are reliable, but they're in the nature of "looking for space? try here". - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merciless delete as the one who tagged it with db-spam. Alexius08 (talk) 03:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * keep, comment This is a non notable company, but it is in userspace, so this does not apply as a reason. The article is not written as advertisement and may not actually be part of spam (more checking needed here). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep (if you must, delete its low-key mention of its website - but it does not really qualify as SPAM).  Userspace.  Lower key than any SPAM I have seen if you wish to call it SPAM.  Collect (talk) 11:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Collect. — BQZip01 —  talk 20:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The article doesn't say much more than "We're a company that rents space at the following 7 locations".  Even if they say it in a low-key way, they're still using Wikipedia to conduct their business and give a directory of their services, which seems counter to WP:NOT.  As I mentioned at the link I gave, I declined the db-spam deletion and took this one to MfD yesterday; there's no harm in waiting 7 days because it's noindex'd in a user subpage.  User:Alexius08 has been tagging a large number of pages as db-spam in user subdirectories, and I'm agreeing and deleting some, declining others, and taking some to MfD in order to get a sense of how people feel about these deletions. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I can see how this would at least become a stub (potentially) from another article. There's no reason to delete it as it simply states the offices in which they exist. Nothing significantly self-serving here. My point is to see the potential for an article. If it has no future, then we should delete it. If it can be improved upon, like this one, I say keep. — BQZip01 —  talk 20:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep ...if it's a stub that's going to be an article (and I really see no reason why it shouldn't be), then the editor ought to get on it. Author hasn't edited or made improvements since August and tag clearly states: "Please consider not tagging with a deletion tag unless the page has not been edited in several days"...author is aware of policy and procedure and possibility of potential delete...however, no policy is being violated...207.237.33.36 (talk) 23:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Another option is to simply blank the page. He can always restore it to work on it later...but then why are we bothering to delete it in the first place? It will still exist in the history. Deletion is far more permanent. — BQZip01 —  talk 17:01, 19 April 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.