Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Roberto valerio/CloudSafe

 __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 delete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Roberto valerio/CloudSafe


This was an article which was deleted and then discussed at Deletion review/Log/2011 February 16. That discussion was closed as "no consensus", and the article was left in userspace to give the user a chance to improve it. However, very little editing was done, and the page has not been touched at all for the last five months. I think it has become time to delete it as a stale draft. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Merely old, even stale, isn't alone a very good reason, but this is about a private company and could be viewed as promotional.  Possibly promotional drafts should at least be blanked during inactivity.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Most of our competitors do have a Wikipedia entry, even companies with substantially less users and coverage. I would still suggest to move it out of userspace and into the regular index. I do not see any argument why a page has to be edited often to be accurate and useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberto valerio (talk • contribs) 09:36, 21 October 2011
 * (1) Wikipedia is not a business directory, and does not exist to provide web space for businesses to hold their own pages. (2) The fact that other businesses which have less coverage are subjects of Wikipedia articles does not justify keeping this one: see WP:OTHERSTUFF. (3) It is not a matter of a page having to be edited often. The issue is that this page was not suitable as an article, but was allowed to be kept in user space as a temporary measure to allow it to be improved, but it has not been substantially improved, and is still not suitable as an article. Thus the temporary userfication has not served its intended purpose. The user page guidline says "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content". It may be that that was not made clear to you, and you thought that userfication was a long term way of keeping it instead of leaving it as an article, but if so I'm afraid you were allowed to have a mistaken impression. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, essentially stale. Roberto valerio is welcome to eventually return it to Wikipedia as an article if he is willing to get it up to Wikipedia standards. -- Klein zach  01:39, 24 October 2011 (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.