- Medworxx (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
deleted with no discussion, as advertising, which I would like to contest - or improve to meet the objection. Certainly not intended to be advertising. Rathfelder (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Temporarily restored for review.For my part, it would probably not have been tagged as a g11 or deleted as such if it had had even one source that's not a press release. —Cryptic 15:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow recreation in Draft space under the articles for creation project. This is promotional as written, but IMO not blatently so. But it needs to have proper independent reliable sources. Alternativly, since it was speedy deleted and there is no reason to salt this, it could be restarted from scratch. For Rathfelder, phrases such as "The company's Patient Flow systems are intended to improve bed demand and capacity management across a single hospital or across multiple sites. They are used in over 34% of the acute care beds in Canada" are a bit promotional in tone, even if factual. But it is the sourcing to press releases that truly grates, in my view. I don't think I would have deleted this, but I can't say it was out of process. Discolsure, my employer operates in the same general field and may be a competitor. DES (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy. Weak case for speedy deletion, and now contested, list at AfD instead.
- http://finance.yahoo.com/news/medworxx-regains-profitability-q4-while-211600150.html "Medworxx Solutions Inc.... a leader in clinical patient flow, and compliance and education solutions...". Surely this can be rewritten to remove promotional tone. It appears at first glance to meet WP:CORP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
-
- I think the give away is the text "The TSX Venture Exchange has not reviewed this press release and neither approved nor disapproved the information contained in this press release." --86.2.216.5 (talk) 20:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse speedy Essentially promotional; promotionalism has so greatly affect the style of work on organization articles that people sometimes do write like this without a COI. I would have certainly deleted it at speedy with no doubt at all. Further, there is no actual purpose in coming here; there is no recreate-protection on the article, so if there indeed are sources, the article could be rewritten properly , in draft space or even mainspace with no decision here necessary. DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Borderline to me. I would not have speedily-deleted the article myself but would have referred it to AFD; I don't think speeding was manifestly unreasonable however. Work has been done on the article since the temporary undeletion, which we try to avoid doing because it messes up the ongoing discussion. Overall, I would say list at AFD for a full and proper discussion. Stifle (talk) 09:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn G11 - doesn't require a fundamental rewrite - there are a few stray adjectives and verb choices to be sure, but that's a relatively minor copy-edit. WilyD 08:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse G11 without prejudice to rework. Good faith notwithstanding, the article draws exclusively on sources which regurgitate press releases. DGG is right: this kind of sourcing is a plague on our articles on commercial entities, most of which have absolutely no evidence of independent analytical review. Guy (Help!) 08:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
