Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PCN Technology


 * 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. Michig (talk) 08:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

PCN Technology

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Reason 4) is essentially advertising, having been created by a paid editor; Reason 8) fails WP:CORP Jytdog (talk) 03:48, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

To provide a bit more reasoning, the article's creator, User:SHurley619 has described on his user page how he took on a paid assignment to create this article. It is essentially advertising. I looked at the four sources present in the article; one of them is based off a press release; two are brief paragraphs in a lists of similar companies; one is an interview with one of the founders. I searched google and there is little significant coverage of this company in reliable sources so this fails the notability requirement for companies; the company is clearly interested in social media so there quite a few sites where they are establishing their presence.Jytdog (talk) 04:01, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete: a previous article on the same topic (draft here) was deleted under WP:CSD G5. Although it's been rewritten, the new article posted by SHurley619 was likely provided by the same company, which has received two community site bans: first as Morning277, then as Wiki-PR. WP:PROXYING says an editor must have "independent reasons" for posting on behalf of banned editors, and SHurley619 hasn't mentioned any such reasons. &mdash; rybec   11:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I'm not saying the articles are "nearly identical"; the rewriting was thorough. However the Wiki-PR Web site claims the company is based in San Francisco, and the company that hired SHurley619 also says it is in San Francisco, according to what he posted on his user page. &mdash; rybec   19:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per Rybec. This seems like a clear case of admitted paid proxy editing on behalf of a site-banned user. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:57, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Lack of notability and suspicion on being created on behalf of a banned user. OSborn arfcontribs. 00:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete No real evidence of notability, beyond the fact that it came from an apparent meatpuppet. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2013 (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.