Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teracom Training Institute (2nd nomination)


 * 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 Deleted as G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion
 * -- Non-admin close by Calton | Talk 01:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Teracom Training Institute
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Small training company. Basically, an advert for their services, stuffed to the gills with their own sources and written, for the most part, by an editor who shares the same name as a listed employee AND one of the refs. No evidence offered of notability. Calton | Talk 00:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * See also Telecommunications Certification Organization (TCO), by the same authors and essentially the same sources. --Calton | Talk 00:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * How odd: according to their "contact us" pages, both this "Telecommunications Certification Organization" and "Teracom Training Institute" have the same mailing address, a P.O. box in Champlain, New York. . Funny, that. --Calton | Talk 17:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Please see the talk page

There are four alleged issues.
 * Two are not violations, based on the written Wikipedia guidelines
 * One is not a violation, but the article can be improved / fixed
 * One is a violation, and a remedy is given.

Please read the discussion of each alleged issue on the talk page.

This article needs some work by an independent editor, but does not merit deletion.

Ericcoll (talk) 03:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC) "If an article was deleted for lacking content or for having inappropriate content (this applies to most speedy deletions) and you wish to create a better article about the same subject, you can simply go ahead and do so, with no need for review. It is especially wasteful to go to deletion review over an unsourced stub when the alternative of creating a sourced article is available." So I would think you're right, this deletion review should end in deletion and the alternative of creating a sourced article written by someone without a conflict of interest would be the way to go. Ericcoll (talk) 04:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:COI, and looks like your "independent" editor might also have a conflict of interest. The best outcome here is delete so that the article can be written from a neutral point of view per WP:NPOV, assuming WP:COMPANY notability can be satisfied. I did the basic Google news search, and there isn't anything there. Also, please don't mess with the format of AfD. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry, I didn't know there was a format to an AfD. This is my first time.  Can you please fix my formatting, so I will know how to do it properly and not look like an idiot?  I'm not even sure if I am allowed to put in paragraphs, or it should all run together...  I don't know what you mean by "my" independent editor.  Can you elucidate?  I took ten seconds and did the basic Highbeam search https://www.highbeam.com/Search?searchTerm=%22Teracom+Training+Institute%22 and came up right away with an article in Network World, a well-known magazine, with an article on the company.  This is one of 19 notability links in the article.  So I think, yes,WP:COMPANY notability can be satisfied.   I understand the concept that a fresh start is necessary so that the article can be written from a neutral point of view per WP:NPOV by another editor.
 * I did some self-education and found this in the wikipedia documentation:
 * Regarding the format, I was referring to the new section you created, and I fixed it. If you want to know the etiquette for contributing to an AfD, try WP:AFDFORMAT. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:44, 15 February 2017 (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.