Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cominform.com

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Davewild (talk) 06:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cominform.com

edit
Cominform.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company. Secondary sources cited seem to be nothing more than directory entries. No evidence of media coverage. Agtx (talk) 23:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. The sources are scanned and uploaded since they are published in German. The are quite independent of the sources if you check well. The company only reserves them for future reference since there are no such sources in English Media. Remember, the firm is 100% German.Hilumeoka2000 (talk) 07:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Quite aside from that these "translated" articles are nothing of the sort, we just can't place any credence on so-called articles that exist on the company's own website. I'd like to see direct links to the magazines' websites, please. That being said, I'm bothered that Hilumeoka2000's all-but-sole output so far has been creating these obscure business articles. Is there a COI/paid creator deal going on? Nha Trang Allons! 14:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Nha Trang... Thanks for ur response. But the last part of your response is not too good.. I'm only defending my edit according to rules. It's not a must that I'll win the case. I'll accept the final output in good faith and learn from the experience. I thought the wiki policy talked much about being polite? I'm not encouraged by the last part of your response. I feel sad and disappointed"Hilumeoka2000 (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hate to say it @Hilumeoka2000:, but the concern doesn't seem unfounded. Consider [1] and [2]. If there is paid editing going on here, you must comply with WP:COI. That means disclosing that you are getting paid for your contributions, if that is the case. Agtx (talk) 20:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • We are supposed to be polite. Polite doesn't mean we're not supposed to ask important questions, just because you think it's mean to ask those questions. Nha Trang Allons! 15:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable company, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. No independent coverage. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Possible Delete Completely fails WP:GNG in addition to being an article created by an undisclosed paid editor. Hiluemoka displays such a flagrant disregard for Wikipedia's rules and policies regarding paid editing as well, refusing to disclose despite the vast amount of evidence to the contrary. Winner 42 Talk to me! 21:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -Non-notable. BMK (talk) 00:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable and promotional. A comment was made about it being a German firm with German sources. I've read all the German sources listed (tho they are on the company website, they could be sourced from the original publication) Some of them are in fact the company's own translations from English language sources. The one from Arbeit und Arbeitsrecht is actually a fairly good article about Human Resources contracts software for the German legal environment. It mentions a number of companies. One of them is Cominform, but the article is not substantially about that product. Cyclex has a mere listing. Midrange Magazine' is about Lotus Notes, not this product. DV als Kernkompetenz, is general and does not mention this product. Personal Magazin is another general article and mentions the product in a single line in a listing. Anyone asking money for writing WP articles should be ashamed to take money for a job like this, using sources they had apparently not read. DGG ( talk ) 06:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete part of the Hilumeoka2000 paid-editing fiasco. Paid spam for NN company. I hope Hilumeoka2000 realises he's not doing any favours to these companies by depicting them in this manner. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cominform.com&oldid=1082395128"