Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Solution-Soft Systems

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 . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:47, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Solution-Soft Systems

Spammy draft created by SPA. KMF (talk) 02:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was wondering what parts of the draft classify as spammy? I am hoping to resolve the issues and edit it into a more acceptable format.Bayareaeditor (talk) 21:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a SPA - I'm simply attempting to post my first page and contribute to the site. I've edited a couple other pages to see if they'll go through since the guidelines are rather strict.Bayareaeditor (talk) 21:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I don't see this as particularly "spammy". It is surely not blatantly promotional, so any promotional contnet can be dealt with by normal editing. And SPAs are still editors, and should be treated with civility and otherwise just as any editor. Even if Bayareaeditor is considered to be an SPA, that is no reason to delete this draft. In fact no valid reason to delete has been provided, nor do I see one. This is a plausible draft about what may well be a notable firm, not that its notability is in issue at this stage. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC) I will add that it was first created only 2 days ago, is being actively edited, and has never yet been submitted for review. Draft space is supposed to be for exactly this sort of thing, to allow an editor, with assistance if needed, to refine a draft until it is ready for mainspace. Why is this nomination attempting to short-circuit that process? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I fail to see what the promotional aspects of this draft are. It's a description of the company and their products. And unless this blatant advertising, then draft space is exactly the place to fix any issues of reading like an advert. -- Whpq (talk) 13:58, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in draft space. Not ready for article space, and not a problem in draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs to establish notability by reliable secondary sources before considering for main space. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 04:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a draft, any "spammy" issues can potentially be fixed before it gets to mainspace. The main problem I see with the current draft is a shortage of independent sources. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.