Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comindware Tracker


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Comindware Tracker

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

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

Reason 1:

This article was created through undisclosed paid editing by.

If you'd like proof, please see &lt;http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:www.freelancer.is/projects/Article-Rewriting-Article-Submission/Replace-existing-WIKIPEDIA-page-maintain.html&gt;. On this cached page from a freelancer marketplace, Alexandra has written, 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)."

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 the Comindware Tracker article per WP:NOPAY and WP:NOTFORPROMOTION.

Reason 2:

ISTM that this product 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, Top Design Magazine, for one, is almost surely a magazine "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) 01:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete I've had concerns about the article from its creation. I cannot find better sources and all but one source in the article fail standards. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As a creator and a main contributer to this article I admit that I definitely had a conflict of interest while editing this page. However I was not payed for it (I created the article at the request of my former colleague a couple of years ago having a poor understanding of the principles of Wikipedia at that time). I should not have to agree to this proposal, and I regret it. I agree that this article has multiple issues and is written as promotional one. So I don't contest this nomination. —Alexandra Goncharik -sms- 12:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I would like to point out that the article being created by an editor with a conflict of interest is not, in and of itself, a reason for deletion. You will note that pages talking about COI state that editors with conflicts are discouraged from editing- they are not formally prohibited. OSborn arfcontribs. 19:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * But, IIRC, promotional articles are forbidden per WP:NOTFORPROMOTION. —Unforgettableid (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing that looks like a high-quality independent source in the references. Makeuseof probably comes closest, but it's still pretty bloggish and their article is written in a way that makes it look more like an advertorial; no mention of any competing products in it for example, and contains language like "Fortunately for all managers and team leaders, there is a wonderful issue tracking solution available called Comindware Tracker." The coverage on Project-Management.com or GetApp.com have the same issues. The former uses language like "modern state-of-the-art", "highly dynamic" etc., while the latter in two looong "reviews" full of superlatives (like "automated processes management as its most unique feature") hasn't managed to find a single thing he didn't like about the product or mention any other product that might do something better (pretty odd for a reviewer who claims he "love[s] working with processes"). [My payoff for wasting my time reading all that is that I'll never go to GetApp.com to read any review ever--this was my first and last visit to their site.]  Also, I didn't find any mentions of Comindware Tracker in Google Books. Overall, I don't think this product/company satisfies WP:PRODUCT/WP:CORP. Someone not using his real name (talk) 09:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 09:48, 8 February 2014 (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.