Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Junction Solutions
- 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 stubified. While the consensus is that the company is notable, the current article was manifestly promotional, and was authored by a company employee or former employee with a clear conflict of interest. (In the course of due diligence, I found this web page, which refers to "Maggie Rabe, marketing coordinator at Junction Solutions, Lincolnshire, IL"; if it becomes necessary, this can be listed on WP:COIN. Therefore, I have stubbed the article and it can be rebuilt by non-COI editors, following Wikipedia policies on verification, courcing, and NPOV. --MCB (talk) 06:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Junction Solutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Contested speedy, then prod. Company is not notable, fails WP:CORP. Article is overly promotional, and the original author has been warned about this repeatedly and has ignored requests to fix it without comment. Self-promotion is strongly suspected, as main author is an WP:SPA with no other articles edited whatsoever. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and stubify. Looks like there's some valid stuff there, so we shouldn't fully delete it. Granted that a lot of it's crap, so just cut all that out and keep whatever's left. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 02:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Sources do not directly deal with the subject of the article. En passant mention does not qualify regarding WP:N issues... this seems more like an advertisement than an appropriate article. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is a valid and notable company. Per the WP: N the concept of notability is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity". Also, let's all please adhere to the WP: TALK Guidelines: The prime values of the talk page are communication, courtesy, and consideration. Instead of criticizing, perhaps time would be better spent editing said page. And Realkyhick ]] it might be beneficial for you to read the WP: BITE article. What makes Junction Solutions a candidate for speedy deletion and not Kineticsware, Inc. when they are both software companies and Microsoft partners that deliver enterprise resource planning (ERP) solutions? Please expand. MaggieRabe
- Comment: As a longtime editor here, I am very well acquainted with WP:BITE. I left a message quite some time ago on
the Talk:Junction Solutionsyour talk page, informing you of the issues that needed to be resolved. You did not respond in any fashion, ask any questions, or engage in any dialogue. You merely removed any warning tags that were applied without comment, left the {{underconstruction}} tags in place for a long preiod of time, and persisted in adding promotional material about the company. As for Kineticsware, Inc., I'll repeat our oft-cited policy: The fact that other similar articles exist is not a valid reason for keeping an article. Each subject must stand or fall on its own merits, not by attempting to link notability to a similar subject. It often means that we simply haven't gotten around to flagging the other article(s) for deletion. And now that you've brought this other company to my attention, guess what I'm about to do to it? Yep, time for another AfD. (By the way, this is not a speedy deletion - that's a separate procedure altogether. This is a regular deltion discussion, which is debated for five days, and is anything but speedy.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Comment: As an editor, it is my understainding that you would provide a critical eye and send feedback to this article and not simply place AfD tags on articles that you see fit. I implore you to make edits to the Junction Solutions page as I again refer to WP: N the concept of notability is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity". I was able to post the current content on the Junction Solutions page from my own research, and isn't {{underconstruction}} a tool to signify that the article is just that, a work in progress? As a new user to Wikipedia, I was unaware that a talk page for discussion existed, and did not monitor the page on a frequent basis as you seem to have the time for. Deleting the warning tags was all I could see to do. I appreciate the deletion process explanation, as it is clearer to me now. Lastly, how, may I ask, is describing a company's background and what it does promotional material? MaggieRabe (Talk to me) 21:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You should have been automatically notified with a top-of-the-page message by the Wikipedia software when I or anyone else posted a message on your discussion page, where I did provide feedback. You mentioned "your own research" - that in and of itself is a violation of Wikipedia policies against original research. You have not provide references as to where you found the information concerning product line or customers; this information is typically known only to those who have a direct connection to the subject company. If you have such a connection (as I suspect), then you have violated policies against conflicts of interest. And attempts to promote a company (or anything else, for that matter) violates policies against advertising and promotion. I nominated the article for deletion after waiting quite some time, far longer than under normal circumstances, simply because you had the under-construction tag posted. However, this cannot be left up indefinitely, and when it becomes apparent that a subject is not notable no matter what other editing takes place, it's time to mark an article for deletion. An article that is not written in an encyclopedic, dispassionate tone and which tends to cast an overly favorable light on the subject are not acceptable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The reference I made to having done my own research was locating and compiling sources to support the material posted on the page. Is there another term more appropriate to use than "research"? You say that I have not provided sources for where I found the information concerning product line or customers and that is incorrect. Please see the references on the Junction Solutions page and you will see where I found that information. Regardless of the time that has passed, you have still yet to edit this article in any capacity, aside from the AfD tag or provide constructive feedback for improving the article. A laundry list of policies that, in your personal opinion, have not been adhered to, is not what I would consider editing. And the {{underconstruction}} tag was not an indefinite place holder, simply to signify that the article is a work in progress as more sources are continually being gathered and it was my hope for others to contribute to an article about a notable company. And yet again, I ask you: how is explaining the history and business model of a company "favorable light on the subject"? I constructed the article after reading and examining the format of other companies, and followed a similar layout. MaggieRabe (Talk to me) 09:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not edit the page because I did not, and still do not, believe the company is notable enough for its own article, period. There is no rule here that says you must edit an article first before nominating an article for deletion. You continue to argue what I haven't done, when the issue is what you haven't done, and what the company hasn't done to pass notability standards. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe in Benjamin Disraeli’s quote "How much easier it is to be critical than to be correct". I do not agree with the opinion that this company is not notable. I do agree that this article needs work. As a new user to Wikipedia, I had hoped for more constructive feedback and support from fellow users, most especially editors, than was given. Continually citing rules that you assume have been broken is incredulous. MaggieRabe (Talk to me) 13:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, your notion of how Wikipedia works is perhaps more idealistic than it should be, and citing rules that should be followed is only incredulous to those who do not wish to follow them for whatever reason. And you still have not answered the question of whether or not you have some affiliation with the company, as I suspect you do. Your avoidance of this matter makes your motives suspect. We are very diligent about not allowing business to use Wikipedia for advertising or self-promotion. So I ask you: Do you have any personal connection to Junction Solutions? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope. MaggieRabe (Talk to me) 17:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You'll pardon me if I'm a bit skeptical. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 23:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe in Benjamin Disraeli’s quote "How much easier it is to be critical than to be correct". I do not agree with the opinion that this company is not notable. I do agree that this article needs work. As a new user to Wikipedia, I had hoped for more constructive feedback and support from fellow users, most especially editors, than was given. Continually citing rules that you assume have been broken is incredulous. MaggieRabe (Talk to me) 13:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not edit the page because I did not, and still do not, believe the company is notable enough for its own article, period. There is no rule here that says you must edit an article first before nominating an article for deletion. You continue to argue what I haven't done, when the issue is what you haven't done, and what the company hasn't done to pass notability standards. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The reference I made to having done my own research was locating and compiling sources to support the material posted on the page. Is there another term more appropriate to use than "research"? You say that I have not provided sources for where I found the information concerning product line or customers and that is incorrect. Please see the references on the Junction Solutions page and you will see where I found that information. Regardless of the time that has passed, you have still yet to edit this article in any capacity, aside from the AfD tag or provide constructive feedback for improving the article. A laundry list of policies that, in your personal opinion, have not been adhered to, is not what I would consider editing. And the {{underconstruction}} tag was not an indefinite place holder, simply to signify that the article is a work in progress as more sources are continually being gathered and it was my hope for others to contribute to an article about a notable company. And yet again, I ask you: how is explaining the history and business model of a company "favorable light on the subject"? I constructed the article after reading and examining the format of other companies, and followed a similar layout. MaggieRabe (Talk to me) 09:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You should have been automatically notified with a top-of-the-page message by the Wikipedia software when I or anyone else posted a message on your discussion page, where I did provide feedback. You mentioned "your own research" - that in and of itself is a violation of Wikipedia policies against original research. You have not provide references as to where you found the information concerning product line or customers; this information is typically known only to those who have a direct connection to the subject company. If you have such a connection (as I suspect), then you have violated policies against conflicts of interest. And attempts to promote a company (or anything else, for that matter) violates policies against advertising and promotion. I nominated the article for deletion after waiting quite some time, far longer than under normal circumstances, simply because you had the under-construction tag posted. However, this cannot be left up indefinitely, and when it becomes apparent that a subject is not notable no matter what other editing takes place, it's time to mark an article for deletion. An article that is not written in an encyclopedic, dispassionate tone and which tends to cast an overly favorable light on the subject are not acceptable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: As an editor, it is my understainding that you would provide a critical eye and send feedback to this article and not simply place AfD tags on articles that you see fit. I implore you to make edits to the Junction Solutions page as I again refer to WP: N the concept of notability is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity". I was able to post the current content on the Junction Solutions page from my own research, and isn't {{underconstruction}} a tool to signify that the article is just that, a work in progress? As a new user to Wikipedia, I was unaware that a talk page for discussion existed, and did not monitor the page on a frequent basis as you seem to have the time for. Deleting the warning tags was all I could see to do. I appreciate the deletion process explanation, as it is clearer to me now. Lastly, how, may I ask, is describing a company's background and what it does promotional material? MaggieRabe (Talk to me) 21:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: As a longtime editor here, I am very well acquainted with WP:BITE. I left a message quite some time ago on
- Weak keep. I think the company is notable enough. But the article needs a cleanup of the obvious promotional material and language. None of those external links should be used in the body of an article either, per WP:EL. • Anakin (talk) 02:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Clearly notable, and i really am puzzled why people think otherwise. The thing to do with spam is to remove it, as is finally being done. Edits and articles are to be judged on their merits, not speculation about COI. Some of the above comes rather close to badgering an editor. DGG (talk)
- Comment: As I've said before, this article has all the signs of a promotional article, if not outright spam. The article was created by an editor with no other edits aside from this article who ignored and deleted all warnings and talk-page comments. When the AfD was posted, the author attempted to turn the tables and make it look like I was to blame, a classic case of avoiding or evading the real issue. The company is not notable, no different from dozens if not hundreds of other similar vetical-market software development companies. Nothing about this company makes it stand out from others, and only two of the sources cited can be verified by a link. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this as spam, the company might be notable, but the entire article is unredeemable. The article will have to wait for a neutral editor to recreate it. AnteaterZot (talk) 18:34, 27 March 2008 (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.