Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telecommunication Instructional Modeling System

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. As per latest comments and improvements by DGG. (non-admin closure) Peter303x (talk) 01:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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]
KEEP meets notability guidelines. Citations are from credible scientific and academic journals such IEEE, ASEE, etc. Honolulucb (talk) 00:54, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- NO, IEEE and ASEE are not "journals". They are professional organizations. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No evidence-based argument as to why this topic meets GNG or other notability guideline.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 10:09, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As an article about a company's product, the notability requirement is defined by WP:ORG, with this guidance under WP:SIRS:

Individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other and meet the four criteria below to determine if a source qualifies towards establishing notability.

Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth.

Be completely independent of the article subject.

Meet the standard for being a reliable source.

Be a secondary source, primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability.

In addition, WP:ORG, companies and/or their products must see WP:AUD:

The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary.

Plenty of the sources for this article meet the ORG and AUD requirements for notability. Here are five examples (among multiple others):

Using Telecommunication Instructional Modelling System (TIMS) in Communications Systems Course, by Song and Dow, Wentworth Institute of Technology, American Association for Engineering Education
"Telecommunications Systems Modeling in the Laboratory", by Hooper, an early developer of TIMS, published by IEEE
"Sticisce avstralskih Slovencev - Slovenian network in Australia"(International, fulfills AUD)
Application of the EMONA TIMS platform for the Telecommunications Engineering career at UNED Costa Rica (fulfills AUD)
Enhancing Students' Lab Experiences using Simulink-based Pre-Labsof Corresponding Hardware-based Labs - ASEE North Central Section Conference

In short, multiple articles cited have been published by well-respected scientific/technical organizations, such as IEEE and American Society for Engineering Education. This article clearly fulfills the ORG and AUD requirements for notability. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 23:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.-- as improved. I removed extensive promotional element such as a duplicative photograph and a detailed list of variants they have for sale (WP is NOT a product catalog). I made the name of the inventor, not the company, more prominent, I replaced the repeated name of the company's device with it . The reason we (or at least I) very much dislike paid editing, is the need to fix the articles. Their articles almost invariably say what the company would like said, which is rarely NPOV. I really dislike doing work asa volunteer for which someone else is being paid. I'm only doing it here as an example--I could just as easily have said Delete for promotionalism, giving a list of the promotional aspects. I keep suggesting paid editors learn how to write WP articles before they have the false self-confidence to ask for money for doing it, but very few have even listened. And I think responsible WPedians should not argue for keeping an unfixed paid article--this would limit the paid content to what comes in already done properly, which would immediately reduce it by 99%. DGG ( talk ) 01:05, 21 September 2021 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.