Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:I-mgmt/draft article on Greening IT

 __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 The overwhelming consensus is to delete. A copy of the draft can be emailed by an admin to any user upon request if they'd like to work on this subject in the future. Killiondude (talk) 06:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

User:I-mgmt/draft article on Greening IT
This article was created via a paid editing bid on freelancer.com in a violation of our policy that Wikipedia is NOT a vehicle for promotion. The subject itself appears too new to be notable and it is written from a promotional point of view.  Them From  Space  02:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sole purpose is to promote a non-notable book. Christopher Connor (talk) 03:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is a draft in userspace, there is no definitive policy that applies here unless this was clear advertising or unequivocally against the WP:USER guidelines. When the draft becomes an article it can then be judged on its merits for notability. If there is evidence that the user account is compromised via paid editing then WP:COIN might be the right forum. Fæ (talk) 05:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. User doesn't appear to be here to build the encyclopedia, merely self-promotion on behalf of the client. MER-C 08:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as self promotion from a paid editor. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is not really so unreasonable, paid editing is not intolerable, except that the editing was by an anonymous Single-purpose account.  If the page had been written by an experienced, known, Wikipedian, I would find the draft article acceptable, as is, in reasonable anticipation for independent reviews.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable book created by a paid editor that has no interest in building an encyclopedia (summary of what everyone has said :P). I've Googled the topic, and there's no real indication of notability, so it's not going to stay an article unless there is a sudden influx of coverage. Netalarm talk 04:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I would like to keep the entry in my user space, and would not move it to an encyclopedic entry before more coverage has been generated around the book and topic. I understand the book is due to receive more coverage and agree it is borderline for notability as it is. I have tried to create a balanced and not a promotional text for this book. i-mgmt 17:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like you have used an undisclosed alternative account to perform paid editing to create what amounts to a promotional article at this time. If we knew your standing as editor, your reputation for judgment, was favourable, then your actions might be viewed less critically.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand the criticism, but you're mistaking my account for a single purpose account. This is my account that I will be using going forward. Although I'm allowed to edit an entry on behalf of a client, I have kept this in my user space since the article/subject is not yet ready for a regular entry. It should be allowed to stay here and be allowed as a regular entry once notability has been established in more detail. My mistake has been to assume I was operating in a "drafting" space in this user-space.i-mgmt 14:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's nice that this is your account moving forward. If you have a past account, I recommend that you be upfront about it.  If it is private, at least note its existence and some basic information (eg blocks).  If this is your first account, then I apologise for our extreme sensitivity about the appearance of userspace=drafting-space being used for hosting pseudo-articles; we have a long history of this.  Did you receive money (or promises) to write this material?  We are undecided about such things, but, as per WP:COI, you should be completely upfront about non-obvious motivations.    --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message. This is my first account, although I'm familiar with wikis in general. It is also correct that I took this assignment for a client, but found the proposition difficult at the moment according to WP rules. However, after reading several chapters in the book I found it quite important and eye opening - not least as it contains a foreword by the president of the Copenhagen Summit last year (biggest ever gathering of heads of state) and now European Commissioner. For those reasons alone I'm convinced the book is eye opening enough to soon warrant a Wikipedia regular entry, so I would like to keep drafting it until it has received more press and notability. I tried my best to be balanced and not promotional in the text and feel others can improve the balance if it is missing. I did not realize I had to disclose my client relationship w the book in the userspace, but have certainly learned my lesson here.i-mgmt 16:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have asked on his talk page to abide by WP:SIGLINK.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:FAKEARTICLE. Cunard (talk) 23:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking through the rules pointed to here it seems that a draft for an upcoming encyclopedic entry does not fall under these categories.i-mgmt 16:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - highly unconvinced by arguments to keep. Editor admits they are on a paid basis. I think we have to take a stand against this kind of thing. Jusdafax  17:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Question - What's the difference between this type of work and WP:Reward board? --Bsherr (talk) 18:11, 22 August 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.