Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PrismTech

:{{la|PrismTech}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/PrismTech Stats])

:({{Find sources|PrismTech}})

Subject fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:COI. Article was created by multiple advertising-only accounts with no other edits other than related to PrismTech Ltd. The links that exist seem to be press releases and insufficient trivial coverage from non reliable secondary sources.

:This is one Part of a larger history of Spam and promotion on Wikipedia by PrismTech Ltd. see also -Spam Case. I am also nominating the following non-notable product pages;

:*{{la|Spectra SDR}}

:*{{la|OpenSplice DDS}}

Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 18:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

:All content posted is factual, truthful, and neutral. Many of the references are from accredited bodies (independent of this company), and add value. Accounts in question may belong to people in the relevant field, thus explaining contributions in relevant pages. All pages associated appear to be factual, truthful, and neutral in accordance with the guidelines. I see no press release material in these articles. ChrisLloydPT (talk) 09:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

:* ChrisLloydPT, Creating and editing Wikipedia articles about your company's products and services is a conflict of interest and is an incompatibility between the aims of Wikipedia and you, because your not neutral. Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote PrismTech Ltd.--Hu12 (talk) 14:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

::I believe that my edits are within the CoI guidelines, more specifics on what is wrong with my edits would be much appreciated. ChrisLloydPT (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

::*I'll remind you, that your username contains your personal name which connects you directly to PrismTech. You have a financial connection to this topic, See "public relations, and marketing". --Hu12 (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - Sources do not demonstrate notability. We need independently written pieces in reliable magazines, newspapers, etc. - MrOllie (talk) 15:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
• Delete I see little to indicate notability under the WP:GNG from searching, and nothing in the article indicates much notability either. Gigs (talk) 15:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

:Thank you both, I will be adding independent sources shortly. Provided that the sources are within the guidelines, will the notices then be taken down? ChrisLloydPT (talk) 15:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

::It depends on if the sources demonstrate significant independent coverage or not. Gigs (talk) 16:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• Delete: No third-party reliable sources have been provided which could be used as evidence for the notability of this company. This kind of company is potentially worth documenting, but private companies often reveal little substantive information about themselves, so there is not much to write an article on. For example size of company, number of employees, nature of the market, major competitors, history of the technology used. Such information would best be obtained from third-party sources, and unless such a company has won a lot of press coverage, it is unlikely to be available. If it turns out that good sources can be found, then the criteria in WP:CORP determine whether we should have an article. EdJohnston (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:48, 1 November 2012 (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.