Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BlockMaster

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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BlockMaster

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

This article is a paid-editing piece developed through a conflict of interest via this request on freelancer.com which reads "We need help copywriting a text about our company, BlockMaster, and our products for wikipedia. BlockMaster provides a solution for protecting portable data – a secure USB flash drive and a management console. We need someone who can understand high-tech descriptions and who is very familiar with how wikipedia works. Deadline Fri, June 18th."

Wikipedia is not a medium for companies to promote themselves. This also appears to have sparse notability, as most of the references are to press releases and I am unable to find significant discussion of this company in multiple reliable sources. This is nominated alongside another article created via this job, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SafeStick. Them From Space 15:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, and probably salt just to be sure. The references provided are all to minor trade publications with small audiences and do not establish any historical, technical, or cultural significance. And if somebody got paid for this, it's safe to assume that's the best they could come up with. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Goes completely against Wikipedia policies as well as the spirit of it. Paying people to spam Wikipedia is just not on. Nuwewsco (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still believe, that the company which product is claimed (by such a reliable source as eWeek magazine) to outperform its competitors (which have articles in Wikipedia) has both the right and the need to be presented here, no metter what the motivation of the main contributor is. User: pozytyv (talk) 17:16, 19 June 2010 (Kyiv time)
Delete per nom. Etrigan (talk) 13:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. (Although I would see nothing wrong with someone paying for non-spam articles following Wikipedia policy.) Tomas e (talk) 17:30, 20 June 2010 (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.