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
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 |
Talk00:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)reply
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.
[1][2]. Funny, that. --
Calton |
Talk17:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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.
"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.
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.