- 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. Kurykh ( talk) 03:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Workpop
- Workpop ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Clear business advertising and policy violations of WP:NOT and also WP:CORPDEPTH (heavily active by one user, Tdogsoccer8), which state sources must not be: "brief announcements", "simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed", "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources", "passing mentions", "press releases or similar", "any material written by the organization, its members, or sources closely associated with it", "advertising and marketing materials by, about, or on behalf of the organization", "any material written or published by the organization", "other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself, whether published by or other"
, and that's a 2-section part of the applicable standards, which is then how we judge and base these articles. Next,
a simple search here showed everything in clear PR announcements, whether published or republished, so none of it would actually improve the article to and above our non-negotiable standards and policies. There's no automatic inherited notability as these same policies state articles must be independently notable, and this article contains clear named mentions, which emphasize its PR bloating. The article also then contains clearly similar methodology accounts, which would violate our policy WP:Sockpuppetry, which goes in hand to WP:NOT. Of the current sources:
- 1-6 are all business announcements although in different publications, they all share the consistency
- 7 is a trivial story
- 8 is same as 1-6, this time in a blatantly PR journal
- 9 is a local newspaper's local story
- 10 is a "Companies to Watch" local-published story and so is 11
- A common sign this was all clear PR was the fact every publication coincides with their business quarterly (September 2014 (6 times), October 2014 (these past 2 publishing within days of each other), March 2015, May 2015 and October 2015) ---- That wouldn't happen unless the company was involved since only they best motivate their own PR
- Because AfC has immensely changed since 2014, we can not automatically consider anything from years ago automatically acceptable now (same can be said for AfDs closed years ago), especially given our newest WP:PAID policy, which states employees must state their involvements, something that was never used in this case or in earlier cases. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- [redacted] Unscintillating ( talk) 23:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- I have no idea what you just said. Could you explain clearly whether you are stating that the nominator is somehow paranoid about PR on Wikipedia and over-nominates or whether you're saying the article itself is a blatent PR campaign. -- HighKing ++ 22:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- Delete -- clearly promotional & unremarkable private company going about its business. K.e.coffman ( talk) 17:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- 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.