Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visible Path

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. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Visible Path

Visible Path (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Contested speedy. Original author admits to being an employee of the subject company, violating WP:COI. Even though it's been toned down a bit, the article is still basically an advertisement for the company. Realkyhick 08:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Reads like an advertisement. I don't see how this is notable. /Blaxthos 11:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. - With a little cleanup it won't be an advertisement anymore, and though the creator works for the company they were trying not to make this an ad, but rather, an acceptable article. Note the reliable sources linked at the bottom: New York Times, Business Week. Mangojuice^talk 12:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Whether or not she "used reliable sources", it is my understanding that the fact she works for the company, is a violation of of Wikipedia policies. See: WP:COI (particularly, "Financial") —Preceding unsigned comment added by IanLamberson (talk • contribs) 21:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Excise the offending material. There are many pages for companies in the same area of business; who cares who wrote it? Strip it down to the facts instead of removing the page. rone 01:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument to keep. And by your reasoning, we should let anyone write articles about their own businesses or those of their employers? This is why we have WP:COI guidelines. Realkyhick 02:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: Call me crazy, but since anyone can edit Wikipedia, what's stopping you from throwing the self-promotional bits out and just keeping the plain facts in? Why waste time with bureaucratic nonsense? rone 18:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Sometimes it's a close call, but we have so many problems with companies (large and small) posting articles about themselves, we have to clamp down on it. It also goes to the reliability of the information provided by the company. You can't expect an employee or owner to post information about a company that casts the company in a negative light, even if that information is pertinent. Spend some time on new-page patrol, as I do almost daily, and you'll see what I mean — assuming you can wade through all the article about garage bands that broke up eight years ago, "_____ is the coolest person ever!" articles and other assorted debris. Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 10:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertising, non-notable website. Keb25 10:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Adveritsing, non-notable website, should be deleted per WP:SPAM (adverts masquerading as articles), WP:COI (vp of marketing the principle author), and WP:NOTE (notability is not temporary).

The VP of marketing of the company wrote this article (link to her job description) which is a violation of WP:COI.

A direct quote from "What is a conflict of interest?":

Financial: If you fit either of these descriptions: 1. you are receiving monetary or other benefits or considerations to edit Wikipedia as a representative of an organization (whether directly as an employee or contractor of that organization, or indirectly as an employee or contractor of a firm hired by that organization for public relations purposes);

The article offers no criticism or balanced perspective and we can't expect any from the Veep of marketing. Meanwhile the company is non-notable so we won't have anyone else coming by to criticise either.

It's my understanding of WP:NOTE that "notability is not temporary" and that wikinews is better suited to subjects noted by a short burst of press coverage.

In sum, the article epitomises the type of article that wikipedia is in danger of being swamped by. As we strive to create a neutral corpus of human encyclopedic knowledge, we cannot let advertisers or people with a profitable interest ruin the credibility of our work as a community.

A nice rule of thumb for editors to follow when considering beginning articles about themselves (which speaks to both notability, spam, and COI) would be: "Wait until someone else does it instead."

J Crow 17:42, 21 September 2007 (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.