Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plintron


 * 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. ✗ plicit  23:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Plintron

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This article has a deletion log which adequately sums up the problems here: G11 for advertisement, A7 for lack of any credible claim of significance, and G12 for copyright infringement (twice), all of this occurring between 2010 and 2016. I submit that given the extensive history of the CSD logs the article should be put before the community to weigh in on its fate, and would suggest salting if deletion does occur to encourage a better built article should any attempt to recreate it again. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. The sourcing is atrocious, with about a fifth of the articles 404'ing out and most of the rest smelling of churnalism, vanity awards, or standard business news. I'm not seeing much better in a Google search (string: plintron). On top of all that, the article reads somewhat like an investment brochure. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 05:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)


 * This message is from Plintron. I am surprised to see our profile marked for deletion due to activity by third parties. We do not manage or control this page and have stepped in today after seeing the changes on our profile bought to attention by a customer. If there is any advertising / PR content kindly let us know so we will change it.
 * Also, we have not been updating this page ourselves so we have not checked 404 errors which can be sorted out. Please indicate the same.
 * However, I must state the comments made are highly obnoxious and are applicable to almost all company profiles.
 * It is unusual to give any user admin rights over others. Do these admin users have qualifications in advertising so as to call our profile an investment journal or advertisement? We went through other company profiles and all over the text is the same. So why have the other company profiles not been flagged for advertising? It’s clear that someone has a malicious interest as they claim from 2010 to 2016, there have been incidents of copyright infringement.  It’s clear someone is stalking our profile based on the circumstantial evidence. Kindly let us know what “copyright infringement” has been done by us so a certain action can be taken by us.
 * The text added was unverified which is against Wiki rules. It appears deletion by some user raised the hackles of the user who posting the content and was probably acting with malafide intentions.
 * Also, the comments seem to be slanderous – For example, Calling awards by respected business journals and respected international organizations by GSMA as Vanity awards. It would be interesting to get the GSMA’s views on its innovation award being called a “vanity award” and it clearly smacks of defamation. Also, whichever user has made these comments have no clue of the telecom MVNO business as standard terms like “solutions” are called buzzwords. Will Unilever get penalized for referring to its PureIt as a clean drinking water solution?
 * As per the wiki code of conduct, all information must be verifiable, factual, preferably with links to references, and not be judgemental or make allegations. There has been a clear violation in some of the edits by third parties and one cannot blame the company for that and remove its page.
 * I would urge the community to take action again trolling users who are misusing admin rights. The IP addresses are visible to all. It is also unfair to remove a company profile based on actions by third party users some clearly having vested interests,
 * If there are any real issues of advertising content, copyright violations, PR, 404 etc. please give examples so that it will be removed by us and only facts presented. Plintron is committed to following the Wiki code of conduct.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plintrongroup (talk • contribs) 07:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't do company profiles, as we are an encyclopaedia project. Ad hominems against the users making arguments in good faith that the article should be deleted reflects terribly on you and the company you purport to represent. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 08:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Respectively, from the top:
 * We'll handle the cleanup. Most company profiles are created and/or maintained by groups that have a press department and are adamant that the article stays a certain way, which is not at all what we are. We are a non for profit encyclopedia that anyone can edit...within reason. And by "reason", I mean within established policies, guidelines, consensus, and when applicable disclosure. Many groups that attempt to add there company's article here run into trouble because their minds are preset for "business" and not "information", so attempting to cleanse the article, bully others, or rally the company to the defense of an article end up backfiring to some greater or lesser extent. If you have faith in your company and its products and/or service, then you can afford to invest some of that faith in the contributors here to see to it that the article meets policy and guideline statues.
 * My qualifications have nothing to do wtih advertising, they have to do with the above mentioned policies and guidelines which I'm betting very heavily that you haven't read up on or are otherwise largely unfamiliar with. Any user can nominate any article for deletion provide that they can show just cause for the article to be listed, they don't need to be admins. In this case, as the filing party, my decision to list was based on a questionable multi-year history of deletions to include a pair of very ominous G12 deletions (to the uninitiated, thats blatent copyright infringement. Anything on here that borrows too extensively from copyrighted sources gets purged or gets the axe, no exceptions). Make it clear I find no copyright infringement, but given that its happened twice before and weighed against the already noted A7 and G11 arguments and it does help make the case for deletion.
 * Arguing "if this then that" or "why us and not them" earns you no stock and no return on investment, but does demonstrate you are not going a formulating a reasonable argument for the retention of the article. Your homework, then, is to read up on the information presented at Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and User:ReaderofthePack/Common notability arguments. Arguments on these trains of thought rarely if ever leave the station.
 * I highly doubt someone's stalking your article. Remember, anyone can edit. Its more likely some overzealous group is attempting to make the company look so much better by adding a lot a stuff that doesn't belong in the article, or if it does, deserves far less attention in the article, and a result the article stand out for being very poorly composed. Its also possible that you've contracted with one of those "wikiwriting" companies that claims that they can get your article on here and keep it there (Before you get any ideas, or if that is in fact what's happened here, you should know that many of those companies are on several Wikipedia watch-lists for blatant violations of numerous policies, so if you thinking hiring one of them is going to help it won't. More likely, it'll result in higher level intervention and problem recreation protection. Keep that in mind going forward.) If you want to blend in with heard, then you need plain white clothing or grey clothing, because all the brightly colored shirts and sunglasses and golden chains and such only serves to draw the wrong kind of attention to you on the editing plains. The more an article looks like the one to its left and right the greater the odds are it stays. "Modest is hottest", as the old saying goes.
 * If you intend to call out editors - admins, users, isp contributors, etc - you need proof. Otherwise, all you're demonstrating is bad faith. More ominously, if you intend to call out editors and/or users, you need to refrain from using words that imply legal language (in this case specifically, "defemation"). Legal language puts you on path that almost always ends in a permanent block for construed legal action. Anything you type on here that can be reasonably construed to be a legal threat or construed to have a chilling effect comes under this heading, we have an absolute zero tolerance policy on this matter, so I implore you weigh your words with care when typing and read it out loud before pressing "save". If it sounds questionable or suggests the involvement of the company's legal department, then it probably needs to be rewritten by someone with a more diplomatic mindset. Make it clear I see no legal threats - overt or otherwise - in any of the above statements, but history shows us that companies usually assume that imply some sort of legal action will persuade us to return to a better or more preferable version written up by someone in their PR departments and almost all of them end up very upset when instead of getting their article back to where they think it looks best they end up blocked and the article(s) in question protected until the legal threat or legal action (whatever they intended it to be) is resolved.
 * Who is "us"? Is this a company account? Under the terms of use its one person to an account, so there can be no corporate accounts on site. Additionally, your username needs to be changed, in accordance with the username policy, a user name may not 1) only contain the names of companies, organizations, websites, musical groups or bands, teams, or creative groups, 2) be promotional in nature, or appear to advertise, promote, sell, or gain support or user base of any person, company, market, product, channel, or other good or service, 3) imply that your user account will be shared between more than one person, 4) only describe a role, title, or position within an organization that can be represented or held by different people. If this is a person working for or otherwise affiliated with the company, you need to publicly disclose any conflict of interest, and if you are being paid to edit on behalf of the company in question you must also disclose these paid contributions in accordance with Paid-contribution disclosure. Failure to declare either option - or both, as is sometimes the case - is grounds for permanent block from the admin corps.
 * I would recommend starting with a change in username first, which is best handled quickly before someone with less patients issues a username block. You can find more information on changing your username at Changing username. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * An encyclopedia includes profiles of countries, companies, etc. so kindly get semantics correct. Also, this is not ad hominem but a statement of violation of the wiki code of conduct as unverified content has been put up by users. It is not against wiki policy to add a page about a company and its products.
 * IP addresses of users have been cross-checked and are found to be coming from servers of business rivals. Are comments made on behalf of business rivals that are not verifiable assumed to be in good faith?
 * If you reflect on the comments, they are basically trolling the company profile and not constructive aimed at improving the article. The comments by a little blue bori are also directly insulting me. This user comment about other people’s articles also shows a pattern of slander and racism.
 * If the intention of the users critiquing the article is constructive and made in good faith and not an attempt at cyberbullying, defamation and blackmail then revert to the issues we have raised. Please indicate the advertising, Copyright infringements, and 404 with a concrete example so they can be rectified in the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plintrongroup (talk • contribs) 09:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Please indent when you reply. You can do so using Shift+8 for the green box or : for a boxless indent. Also, I draw your attention once more to both our username policy and remind you that there are to be no legal threats (which includes actions that may result in a chilling effect). TomStar81 (Talk) 10:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep, this looks more like attack on old issues of advertising dating 6 years abck and removal of unproven legal content. It can be rewritten so as to look less like LinkedIn profile though and more of a company entry. This company features regularly in the MVNOs World Congress and supplies solutions to Lycamobile a top 10 MVNO presents in 24 countries. Also Dun&Bradstreet  is a reputable award. Hence should be retained as its useful for MVNO industry researchers.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbtigon (talk • contribs) 17:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)  — Sbtigon (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Notability-by-osmosis is not a valid argument, and the Dun & Bradstreet award is cited to BusinessWire, which is never going to be a reliable source because it only ever publishes press releases. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 20:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Please delete the article it's a terrible article with unreliable information and promotional article Qwv (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC) — Qwv (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete - There really does not appear to be anything usable in the citations, this is press release and routine trade publication buzz. Add to that the tangle of paid editors, a new account (Plintrongroup, above) that is literally a mouthpiece of the business, and a handful of detractors trying to double the article size with a litany of lawsuit minutiae. There's nothing to salvage here. Zaathras (talk) 01:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:TNT I tried cleaning up the article and gave up quickly. If there's anything there, it's a small fraction of the current article, and blowing it up to start over is a workable solution if enough notability can be found. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 17:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.