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]

@Possibly The guidelines at WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE specify to disclose either in your userpage or in the talk page of the article. I have already disclosed in my userpage. If it was not obvious then I declare here that I was paid to make the page (There you have it!). I am otherwise not associated with them and used my best judgment to comply with all Wiki policies and to write in a non-promotional manner. If you feel any specific part is promotional, please state the specifics here, so I can fix it. I have gone ahead added a few new non-primary sources and removed one primary source. The new IEEE document [1] will need a full paid access to read, but I will be glad to email it to you, if you like. I left the other 2 primary sources, as one is a user manual, which as User:Grand'mere Eugene has stated is an acceptable format of primary source. The primary sources are specifically used as to explain what the product is and what it does, so they are acceptable citations in this case.Alice Jason (talk) 01:20, 13 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]