Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PSSC Labs


 * 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   no consensus. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

PSSC Labs

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

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

Reason 1:

WP:NOTFORPROMOTION.

This article was created through undisclosed paid editing by.

She has failed to state outright on the talk page that she is a paid editor.

If you'd like proof that she is paid, 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, 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 may fail WP:AUD, which says that "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability". Well, Ms. Goncharik has shown us no SIGCOV by The New York Times or by BusinessWeek or by any such mainstream source.

WP:42 says you need at least several mainstream sources. 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) 04:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Passes WP:AUD per Hoovers. The who, why, how and when of the article's creation is utterly, totally and absolutely beside the point if it passes WP:GNG, WP:V and WP:NPOV which this article appears to do. Whoever created it could have done a better job with the refs given that there are other readily available refs which are not broken or depend on the internet archives, etc. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Since the creator was paid, she mentioned only good things about the company. I haven't checked whether or not any bad things have happened: lawsuits, convictions, notable failures, unreliable products, or such. But if any bad things have happened, surely she omitted them from the article. I think that we should delete the article and wait for an unbiased editor to come and recreate it, including both the good and any bad. Still, if you are sure that the article passes WP:NPOV, then I ask: How is it possible for an unbalanced article to pass WP:NPOV? Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 06:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You have proof that the article is unbalanced? I saw nothing negative written about the company during my search for additional cites. If there are negatives, then please point them out and/or add them. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:CORP for lack of significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources. The references listed are mostly not Reliable Sources. Hoover information is self-supplied and does not contribute to notability IMO. A Seattle Times article gives the company one sentence. There is an article at genomeweb but I don't know if that qualifies as a Reliable Source. Some of their individual supercomputer installations have gotten coverage, and there is some trade-magazine coverage, but I don't find this to add up to notability. --MelanieN (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 13:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Keep conditional upon some verification of the sources. The most reliable seeming sources are the books, and I don't have those books - can anyone verify that their servers are mentioned? The article doesn't read as particularly promotional to me and at a glance it certainly seems like it passes WP:AUD to me. Also, whether or not the person who wrote the article was paid is irrelevant. Even if it's got promotional content if it's notable just cut it down to a stub and let someone expand it. 0x0077BE  [talk/contrib] 19:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 13:14, 12 March 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.