Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mojo-hustla


 * 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. &mdash;harej (talk) (cool!) 21:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Mojo-hustla
We talk a lot about db-spam at WT:CSD these days, and I'd like to get more feedback from MfD voters. My personal vote is to speedy-delete this as db-spam, with a nice note to the creator along the lines of "Your only two contributions so far to Wikipedia have been your user page and similar content in the deleted article Fly Security Services. This gives the impression that your only interest is promoting a particular company, but I could be wrong; maybe you'd like to edit other articles on Wikipedia.  If so, please enjoy your stay, but first read WP:PROMO and WP:Your first article." - Dank (push to talk) 17:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should give these folks encouragement to stick around rather than giving them a hard shove out the door with a block for spam. –xenotalk 17:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, Xeno. Is that roughly the message you'd like to see on their talk page?  How do you feel about speedy-deleting this userpage?  And btw, what do you think of the link to WP:PROMO (a section of WP:SPAM) rather than WP:COI?  PROMO seems easier to read, more to the point, and more forgiving to me than COI, at least for newbies. - Dank (push to talk) 17:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The only problem I see linking "PROMO" is that it's calling them a "spammer" which is a derogatory characterization. COI is a little less harsh in that regard. I think the page should be blanked, rather than deleted, they should also be pointed to WP:UP. –xenotalk 17:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a great idea, we ought to be able to tailor a message for potential promotionalism on userpages and put it in a linked section of UP. I'll work on it this weekend. - Dank (push to talk) 17:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How about WP:BFAQ WP:WHYNOT? It was a little sloppy, but I've tightened it up; it's more conversational and not as accusatory as COI or PROMO, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 16:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep, but edit to remove excessive promotion, such aas the external link. External links are only OK for serious contributors.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done with this edit. However, I am uneasy about a userpage that suggests that the user represents a company.  Users should be individuals.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as edited Does not now appear to violate any rules or policies.   And I find no actual policy page which says users can not represent companies - only that they adhere scrupulously to COI policies.   Collect (talk) 13:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Role_account. I can't immediately find an en: page reference, but role/shared accounts are blocked on discovery.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * U: "the suggestion that the account is operated by a group, project or collective rather than one individual" - Dank (push to talk) 01:40, 6 July 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.