Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Vyomnagrani/eInfochips


 * 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. If the user comes back and agrees to remove the blatant advertising, I would be willing to undelete it to allow them to do that.--Aervanath (talk) 06:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Vyomnagrani/eInfochips
Declining db-spam and taking to MfD; I'm not sure what to do and need advice, and there's no harm in waiting 7 days because it's noindex'd in a user subpage. The page has been deleted from mainspace at least 3 times, twice as A7, but there's a lot of information here; perhaps the creator will work with us. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 01:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merciless delete as the one who tagged it with db-spam. Alexius08 (talk) 03:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete looks too much like an advertisement. Promotional language, use of our. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Per "rationale" used for every deletion -- there is no requirement that userspace only be used for mainspace articles. I would suggest we ask that the overt external links be removed, as I suspect would be done, and be done with this. Collect (talk) 11:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but there's a requirement that they not be used for advertising, per WP:CSD. I believe that's what we're trying to figure out. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur that it shouldn't be used for advertising, but it is plainly listed as a user page and isn't linked from anywhere, so I'd be hard pressed for anyone to think this was a "real" article on Wikipedia. — BQZip01 —  talk 20:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * delete207.237.33.36 (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep actively being worked on/improved. Valid place to do this. — BQZip01 —  talk 20:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not since December (except for an IP fixing a single year). That's one of the questions I'd like to get a sense of ... how long do you all want to wait before we give up? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think 6 months is appropriate, though that isn't officially codified anywhere. It isn't doing any harm right now and the IP may have been the primary user editing it from a place where logging in isn't an option (I know I've done that...). FWIW, I'm going to remove the spamish links. As far as I'm concerned, it is a sandbox to do with as the user wishes. The references need to be improved in order to be an article, but it is fine here now. — BQZip01 —  talk 20:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But from a user page is not to be used for: advertising or promotion of a business or organization unrelated to Wikipedia (such as purely commercial sites or referral links, or extensive self-promotional material that is unrelated to activities as a Wikipedian 207.237.33.36 (talk) 01:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't purely commercial as it is also informative. Purely commercial would be trying to sell something and providing contact information for a product. The intent of this page is informative in nature and pretty well worded. — BQZip01 —  talk 03:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say I think you need to review the article in question again in more detail and with a more open mind, as I just did. The entire article relies on a single websource, and even down to the wordage of the intro it reads to me as a blatant advert.  207.237.33.36 (talk) 04:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm also surprised about your attitude, considering your vote above regarding User:Zurvivor. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 04:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't an article, yet. Just a draft. The same rules don't apply to drafts.
 * If it is being used for advertising, it's being done in the stupidest way possible (burying an article under a user page)
 * As for comparing to Zurvivor, his/hers is a page about their personal progress in a game. There is nothing about that that cold possibly ever be an article. This one is not the same. — BQZip01 —  talk 19:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * About Zurvivor, you wrote, "If this was an interest of the user and they contributed other things to Wikipedia, I would see no reason to keep it, but they are abusing the user page as a place to put things online with little contribution." I see this as the same situation. It might be stupid to advertise here, but that's what's being done...using a user page for advert purposes while contributing nothing else. "The same rules don't apply to drafts"? WP:NOT clearly says the guidelines applies to all content hosted in Wikipedia, including userpages. Anyway, look, I'm not going to continue...we've both made our points and opinions known and we've both been civil. We just disagree. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 03:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree that we disagree. I also think that guidance could be a tad more specific on the subject like "if the page hasn't been edited in X months..." In any case, we'll see where it goes. — BQZip01 —  talk 03:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur -- but when I suggested such, there was no support. In one case here, three years was specifically deemed "not too long" for an active user. I am unsure as to what IP207's rationale for deletion is, other than disagreeing with you on another MfD?  I am rather sure many userpages do not have even a single "source" at all. Collect (talk) 11:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Since it's been asked:
 * Blatant promotional language:

"Want to develop a product? Talk to them – they will help you...This unique combination of...expertise is found at eInfochips." (Who are they talking to? Does this sound particularly encyclopedic?) "they have executed successfully", "offers the inherent advantages..to customers", "eInfochips, a leading Electronics product engineering company"  (according to whom?)"To be ahead of competition & to be differentiator amongst all competitors, companies need to be able to master the rapid product realization process...in order to bring new products quickly to the market with highest reliability." (not THIS company in particular, but a sweeping generalization, worded to put this business' profile ahead of their competitors, written in marketing-geared language) "high-quality, cost-effective & business-focused approach and extensive experience...help our customers reap significant year-on-year benefits" (according to whom?) "(their business model) ensures your products are bug-free and enjoy a longer life-cycle through the incisive QA-Testing services and sustained Software Maintenance and Development services" (Whose products?) "becoming a big challenge in this extremely fast-paced market with stringent demands for product reliability, high performance & low cost." (highly subjective and market-geared language)
 * Use of subversive and outright weasel words throughout, terms that only apply to company insiders and their potential customers:

"business was placed on a comfortable footing""significant events""now they have more than 300 happy customers""a 700+ (person) strong team""services help our customers to reduce time and cost" ...I could go on with those, but I'm only halfway through the page and I'm not going to copy and paste every like. You get my point. See WP:CSD.


 * Furthermore, much -if not all- of the article is a word-for-word copy-and-paste job from the SINGLE website it is referencing. Yes, ONE website, multiple pages, word-for-word.  Check the references in the article for yourself. See WP:CSD
 * In reading the article, it does seem to me that the author of the page is clearly selling a product. There is way more information about "services offered" and "happy customers" than about the company architecture or history.  It's not in balance, and it is beyond any comprehension an advert page.

207.237.33.36 (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Last, I want to point out that I am offended by the implication by Collect that I am being disagreeable just to disagree, or to extract some sort of revenge because of a disagreement on another mfd. If anything, in this discussion alone, I went out of my way to appreciate the alternate pov and to point out that I appreciated the civility we all have maintained.  (And, from the looks of Collect's talk page, it seems that he's been involved in similar instances of personalizing disagreements many times.  Please don't involve me in that sort of behavior.  I'm not interested.)


 * Comment I am looking at it for the first time. It is quite possible it might be made into a satisfactory  article. Anyone can do it, not just the author. DGG (talk) 02:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Are articles usually created on userpages, edited by other editors, then published? 207.237.33.36 (talk) 04:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't really know what "usually" is, but it is certainly common to do so. Furthermore, some WP:AfDs are stored in user space until such time as they can be improved and there is no prohibition upon doing so. Perhaps this should be better spelled out in appropriate guidelines. — BQZip01 —  talk 00:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And while that could be true, with the exception of two incredibly minor edits (one of which was clearly a typo -writing 2008 vs. 2009), the article hasn't been touched since December 2008. And, as written, it would be an article that would require immense work: notability would be questioned, the single source is self-published, weasel words, etc...   207.237.33.36 (talk) 03:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability applies to articles, the fact that a single source is all that is currently being used is irrelevant as it is not an article, existence of weasel words easily be mitigated, lots of articles require work, etc. — BQZip01 —  talk 03:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We've both made our points here. Let's see where it all shakes down.  PS- Regarding your comments in this edit, how many months would you suggest waiting? 207.237.33.36 (talk) 05:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * — BQZip01 — talk 05:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I see...but to wait 7 more weeks and start this process over...when the page creator hasn't even weighed in? Nah. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 06:02, 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.