Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellex Medical Lasers

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. Tone 17:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Ellex Medical Lasers

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Ellex Medical Lasers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This article has been tagged for notability concerns since 2013. Most editing on the article has been performed by now-blocked paid editors - some undeclared, some obviously (by username) representing the company. There's been some recent editing by obviously connected contributors, and is supported only by a single rehashed press release, so I took a look to see whether I could tidy it up a bit, but from what I can find in its history it's never been supported by references that would rise to WP:CORPDEPTH standards, and I can't find anything online other than routine announcements, profiles and the like. From what I can make out, it fails WP:NCORP. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Strong delete Been meaning to do this myself so thanks for beating me to the punch. Almost every contributor (including the creator) seems to be a SPA who hasn't edited outside this article. The history clearly shows numerous attempts to edit the article by the company itself. I tried to tidy it up myself and searched for any reliable sources I could find but found nothing but recent PR pieces about the sale. I added a prod tag but it was removed by an IP which had only ever made that one single edit. I'm on mobile now so will come back to add more diffs but a quick google search on the most recent contributor Victor Previn shows a clear COI. Quite frankly unsure how it lasted this long. Definitely fails WP:ORG Glen 15:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks for this Glen - reading back again through the page's history, I agree with your assessment - the only edits, aside from RCP reverts and standard gnome stuff, have come from throw-away SPAs. I'm convinced that all of the prose in this article has been written by undeclared paid editors in contravention of our terms of use. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Delete and salt with extreme prejudice, given the above comments. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• I agree please Delete with extreme prejudice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor Previn (talk • contribs) 03:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Doesn't seem to be notable. The only independant coverage of it seems to be regarding their share price, which isn't what I'd call significant coverage. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per KJ Cheetham. Deus et lex (talk) 01:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per above; also WP:NOTRESUME, WP:SPAM, WP:NCORP, and WP:TNT. It is written as a resume, not an article. The unusual history of SPA editing indicates it might be spam; I can't assume good faith when it's so in your face. Even if we were to overlook that, it just seems not to pass as a notable business. It would need a total laser-focused (pardon the pun) re-do in order to be an article. Bearian (talk) 02:34, 23 July 2020 (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.