Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shimmer Sensing


 * 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.  Sandstein  12:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Shimmer Sensing

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is essentially advertising, the contents is a first, a catalog of their available devices, second a list of every possible field to which the device might possibly at some time in the future conceivably be relevant, the remainder is a list of unimportant prizes  DGG ( talk ) 20:05, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Shameless advertising article created and expanded by two COI/SPA accounts. While (after a hunt using different variations of the company's name), I can find some news coverage of the subject, it doesn't appear to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Certainly not to the extent that outweighs the other concerns. For example, as an Ireland-based company, when I search one of the two main newspapers of record, the Irish Times, I find: Shimmer Technology (0 related results), Shimmer Sensing (3 related results = 2 passing mentions, 1 reprinted awards press-release), Summer Research (5 related results = 1 about subject, 4 passing mentions), Shimmer Sensor (11 related results = 7 of which are passing mentions of the subject in articles primarily about other topics, 1 "sponsored" advertorial, 2 "reprinted press release as news" examples, and 1 which is perhaps substantively about the subject and objective/independent). While one could possibly level a similar charge at pretty much all coverage of companies, I don't see that perhaps a handful of (churnalism-style) "press releases as journalism", really meets GNG or CORPDEPTH. When we add in the blatant advertising and WP:NOTWEBHOST concerns raised by the nom, I just don't see how this article can stand as it does today. The COI/SPA concerns tip it over the edge for me. While we could perhaps pare the article back to something that is more in keeping with content guidelines, and something which is more reliably and independently sourced in line with RS guidelines, what would remain would likely be quite thin. If the consensus is that the article is be kept, then that is what needs to happen. As, as it stands right now, it is an affront to COI/PROMO/SPAM policies... Guliolopez (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and per Guliolopez. Spleodrach (talk) 08:48, 10 March 2020 (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.