Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paradox engineering


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Paradox engineering

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Sufficient notability is asserted to pass CSD, but there is insufficient asserted to pass WP:GNG. References rely on primary sources such as the corporation itself or on press releases, sometimes duplicating those in different citations. The article feels highly promotional, and smells like a copyvio, though I have been unable to find it. Fiddle  Faddle  11:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as pure advertorial. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC).
 * This article is formally correct and if you think that is "advertorial", you have to look at Oracle page or Philips page, and consider that at the same level...Is explaining not advertising! Sunny2888 (talk) 16:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is an advertisement masquerading as an article: "...a business footprint spanning the 5 continents through strong business development and sales activities..."; " the company signed strategic agreements with key market players such as NEC, in order to provide world-class Smart Grid solutions to the market..." This would need a complete rewrite and while it may be that a good article could be written about this company, this panegyric is not it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Too detailed but not advertising, could pass CSD.Saraa26 (talk) 08:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC) — Saraa26 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:38, 3 September 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.