Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loci Controls


 * 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. (non-admin closure) &mdash;  Yash! (Y) 01:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Loci Controls

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. This article was written by a WP:COI editor, and is WP:PROMO- for example "has shown to increase efficiency by 25% in at least one location". Joseph2302 (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Sorry Joseph, but it looks like the sources given do pass WP:CORP such as Popular Science and WCVB. That one "promotional" line is reliably sourced to popular science. I don't think WP:TNT is required here. Winner 42 Talk to me!  16:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - just squeaks by WP:CORP. ukexpat (talk) 18:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep  - (As the author of most of the content in the article) I found a request at the teahouse after speedy deleting it WP:A7. I looked into it and definitely consider popular science to be a WP:RS, so I undeleted, did some research, found some citations.  A google search found several other WP:RS  that I added in.  The 25% part was meant to be part of an "assertion of notability", and not promotional.   Chris  lk02  Chris Kreider 18:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine, if you want to let companies spam Wikipedia with rubbish about their companies, then so be it. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC) Retracted Joseph2302 (talk) 00:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * First off, 95% plus of that content was added by myself based on direct synthesis from the reliable sources that I have also cited, and you have my assurance I have nothing to do with that company. Secondly, any of the content that was added by a WP:COI editor was reviewed by myself, and is all attributable to a reliable source.  Secondly, I used to look through reliable sources such as popular science for organizations such as this, which have been notable enough to get actual coverage.  The difference between spam, and this article is, spam is written with the goal of advertising a company or service with the intent to increase sales; this article was written with the goal of synthesizing the relevant information from reliable sources.  For example, if the same content that I wrote was written in a "spam" tone, it might say "Our product increases efficiency 25% for methane extraction", regardless of the fact that this notable result was found in a single location and may not be representative of the entire product, but written or construed in such a way that a reader may believe it to be so.  By writing it as "25% in at least 1 location", and having that assertion directly quoted to a reliable source, I expressed a notable aspect of this organization (a requirement for an article is an assertion of notability) in a way that is meant to express the facts from the sources I used, while not expressing it in prose that may mislead a reader into thinking something other than what the source I got it from expressed.  Chris  lk02  Chris Kreider 19:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but unless you control everything the other user writes, it'll quickly turn to COI spam. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC) Retracted Joseph2302 (talk) 00:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I will keep an eye on it, but I doubt the threat/danger of that is as serious as it may seem.  Chris  lk02  Chris Kreider 22:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: Holy crap, Joseph -- there's a line between enforcing relevant guidelines and policies and Being On A Crusade, and your posts here cross it. I understand that you believe that paid/COI editors ought to be kicked off of Wikipedia, but in the meantime, they're permitted to edit and create articles about their companies.  If you don't like that, your only recourse is to seek to change consensus to your POV over on the relevant policy talk pages, not to delete reliably sourced articles with properly sourced content.  The measure of whether a subject merits an article on Wikipedia comes down to whether the subject meets the GNG or not, not whether the editor supplying sound citations is COI.  In especial, your statement about "controlling" what other editors contribute is quite disturbing, and is more needful of scrutiny than anything some poor COI editor puts forth.   Ravenswing   20:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, with hindsight I realise these comments were wholly inappropriate, and have retracted them. I understand that COI/paid editors can create company pages, and I really don't know why I got so emotional/stupid about this one. I'm still not convinced it passes [{WP:GNG]], a couple of good sources isn't enough IMO. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep I must agree with User:Ravenswing on this matter. "I understand that you believe that paid/COI editors ought to be kicked off of Wikipedia, but in the meantime, they're permitted to edit and create articles about their companies." and "If you don't like that, your only recourse is to seek to change consensus to your POV over on the relevant policy talk pages, not to delete reliably sourced articles with properly sourced content. The measure of whether a subject merits an article on Wikipedia comes down to whether the subject meets the GNG or not, not whether the editor supplying sound citations is COI.  In especial, your statement about "controlling" what other editors contribute is quite disturbing, and is more needful of scrutiny than anything some poor COI editor puts forth." I am really not understanding your zealotry regarding this article and many others recently. The article subject has significant coverage across several WP:RS including |title=A,, , and , especially the Popular Science and WCVB ones. That being said the article subject passes WP:GNG, WP:CORP, and crosses the threshold of notability.WP:N     Cheers!     WordSeventeen (talk) 09:45, 25 May 2015 (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.