Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stealthmachines

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. Article is found to be promotional in nature and lacking the requisite notability for inclusion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stealthmachines[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A couple of product reviews & a BBB page IMO don't meet WP:GNG, doesn't looking like much third party coverage. Also given multiple attempts to create this article & some of the language in it this looks like WP:PROMO. JamesG5 (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since this article was flagged for removal within seconds of its creation, to me this article was not looked over by the editor with the same care that I put into it. Maximum PC and PC World are both internationally recognized media outlets, and PC World is part of the massive IGN network. Tech Syndicate is a VERY popular alternative tech news outlet. The lesser sources provide additional legitimacy to the company/article, but are not depended upon for the article's substance (although they were included so that the article was more of a full read). The major sources of the article as the major outlets provide more than enough legitimacy to the article and its statements.

Multiple attempts to create the article did occur, yes, as I was told after painstakingly making the necessary edits that my written article would be included. Also, comparable companies with comparable sources such as Digital Storm have gotten the nod for years, and yet my article which I have been doing my darndest to comply whilst working with reviewers has been declined.

Thank you for your time. -Argusg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Argusg (talk • contribs) 06:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Argusg: Most of the references fail WP:RS as they are either a Google Search result (which isn't regarded as a reference at all), PRIMARY sources (those with facts/data attributed to the company or quotes from the company), Press Releases or simple business listings which are mere passing references. All of the Tek and Pax East references are promotional and PRIMARY.

But - there are two that I regard as being good quality. Once is the MaximummPC reference that appears tobe a reliable independent third party that provides details about the company and reviews a product. The other is the PCWorld reference - again meets the criteria. But two product reviews are not enough to denote notability - can you provide any more (that meet the criteria at WP:RS)? -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting that the PC World and MaximumPC references which you said were good were both cover page articles, not mere reviews. The Tek Syndicate is as big as MaximumPC with millions of viewers, and they have StealthMachines on their website twice - see for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFeC25BM9E0 . The videos about StealthMachines are not promotional in nature. If you would please watch the example video and the actual StealthMachines videos to see the non-promotional, non-biased style of this media outlet which is a trusted source for millions of viewers.

Jerma985 has over 500,000 subscribers and over 100 videos with 500,000+ views, including many videos with almost 2 million reviews, for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yU6WC4dpaHM

I changed the article again, please review. I just want an article made, you can cut the article down to three sentences for all I care, I just want to have my first published article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Argusg (talk • contribs) 17:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have not heard anything new in some time regarding my edits. While I await further assistance, I would like to make sure the following Wikipedia principles are applied to this process:

1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_rules_are_principles

It's no small fact that there are currently hundreds of other boutique companies listed on Wikipedia which are equally as relevant and sourced as this article. This article was painstakingly written, edited, and re-edited to meet the editors standards. Please, help it grow, don't snuff my quiet voice out. contribs) 2 Feb. 2017

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The existence of similar content is not a valid argument for inclusion. —swpb^T 15:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was told in early 2016 if I just added one more notable source this article would be included. Since 2016, PCWorld placed a StealthMachines article on their homepage and a patent was added to the company's history. In my eyes, if the article BARELY didn't have enough sources a year ago, and the very best source it now has was since created, this article should be good to go.

@swpb - If similar content is permitted to exist but this article is not, that should be grounds for deletion of the similar content. Alternatively, this article is good to go, and should be treated as such. Notwithstanding, that other equally notable boutique computer companies have an article was not my main point... please address my OTHER more valid points. Thank you.

DELETE. WP:PROMO and WP:NPOV. WP:COI strongly suspected as this editor has only edited this article except for this edit adding the subject company's name to a list. The article reads like it was written by the company's marketing intern. Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:53, 8 February 2017 (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.