Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telecommunication Instructional Modeling System

Telecommunication Instructional Modeling System

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article, created by a paid editor for the company that makes the device, strikes me as an advertisement masquerading as an article: WP:ADMASQ. --- Possibly ☎ 21:54, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep the article is well referenced and is not promotional. Paid editing has been disclosed and is not a valid reason for deletion. If you can specify which parts of the article sound promotional, they can be removed or improved. If an article can be improved, you are required to improve it rather than nominate for deletion. This product is an educational product used by many higher educational institutions and is well referenced as you can see. Alice Jason (talk) 22:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:56, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alice Jason: per WP:PAYTALK, you need to explicitly declare that you are the paid editor who created the article when discussing the article on talk pages. This is especially important at AFD. This is not a Speedy keep; per ADMASQ "advertisements posted on Wikipedia can be dealt with by either proposed deletion or listing them on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion". --- Possibly ☎ 23:26, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the notability fail, it should be noted that at least three sources authored by the company owners (Manfredini, Carlo and Breznik, Alfred) have been woven into the article. These were cited seven times. --- Possibly ☎ 23:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. According to WP:PRIMARY, primary sources may be used in an article under this circumstance:

3. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.

In the six references to the 3 articles by Manfredini and Breznik, I only found statements of fact and description. The other 22 sources combined easily pass WP:ORG, including WP:AUD. If there are inappropriate promotional statements, they should be trimmed, but I'm not finding any. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]