Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Promwad

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. Obvious COI. As an aside, see the discussion currently ongoing about COI editing -- RoySmith (talk) 15:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promwad

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

Please delete this spammy and non-neutral article for two reasons.

Reason 1:

WP:NOTFORPROMOTION.

This article was created through undisclosed paid editing by Alexandra Goncharik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam).

If you'd like proof, please see <http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:www.freelancer.is/projects/Article-Rewriting-Article-Submission/Replace-existing-WIKIPEDIA-page-maintain.html>. On this cached page from a freelancer marketplace, Ms. Goncharik wrote, in part:

"I have considerable experience in editing and submitting Wikipedia articles (5+ years), following its policies and guidelines. My proven track record consists of about 700 contributions, including creation of new articles about people, companies, their services and products. I really love doing this. My contributions log: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Alexandra_Goncharik (I can send you some examples of my articles in Wikipedia, if needed)."

Please see also Ms. Goncharik's freelancer profile.

Undisclosed paid editing is a cheap and sleazy thing to do. See also the two short cautionary tales at User:Durova/The dark side. Personally, I feel that even disclosed paid editing makes Wikipedia a worse place for the world to get information. Still, if you feel that you must do paid editing, then I request that you please not write new articles. Instead, get Wikipedians to write new articles for you. See WP:BPCOI.

Dear admins: Please delete this article per WP:NOTFORPROMOTION, which disallows the writing of promotional articles, and per WP:NOPAY.

Reason 2:

ISTM that this company fails WP:AUD, which says that "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability". Well, the EE Times, for one, is almost surely a publication "of limited interest and circulation".

WP:42 says you need at least several mainstream sources, such as major newspapers. If you do find several such sources, please paste links below.

Dear admins: Please delete the article per WP:AUD.

Thanks for stopping by! —Unforgettableid (talk) 13:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This company is the largest independent electronics design house in Eastern Europe. It has coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources (not trivial or incidental). EE Times - Electronic Engineering Times (3 articles about Promwad) - is one of the most popular international media in electronics industry. It has 844 references in Wikipedia. Its local European edition was mentioned 577 times in Wikipedia. Some of Promwad's developments are unique or one of the first of their kind (see articles in C4ISR Journal and linuxdevices.com). According to Wikipedia:AUD, "at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary". So I believe the article complies with WP:AUD and WP:42. Also I has declared my professional connection to the subject of the article. Please see Talk:Promwad for more info. --Alexandra Goncharik ^-sms- 16:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not your article passes WP:AUD, it still should be deleted per WP:NOTFORPROMOTION. Re. your first point: Even if a trade magazine is the #1 magazine in the electronics-design industry, and even if it is distributed internationally, I believe it may still be considered a magazine "of limited interest and circulation". Re. your other point: You added a template which said you had "a personal or professional connection to the subject of the article" but nowhere did you actually say that you were paid cash to write it. —Unforgettableid (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. COI editing. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

delete and salt. They can, and probably will, just buy another one. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no substantial independant coverage.TheLongTone (talk) 12:12, 20 February 2014 (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.