Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SSL Wireless

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SSL Wireless (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)

Article is written only for company promotional and advertising purposes. References are very poor. No significant coverage by independent media. Nothing significant or notable about the company to be here. does not meet notability criteria. Light21 13:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete promotional tone and terrible sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Gerard ~ Moheen ^(talk) 16:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: A promotional tone can be fixed. The question is whether this company meets WP:GNG. It appears to me to be a notable Bangladeshi company. There is quite a bit of coverage of the company in The Daily Star, which is the most widely-circulated newspaper in the country. Sources that I found include Daily Sun, Dhaka Tribune,Daily Star, more Daily Star, and more Daily Star. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete upon the review of the sources presented above. The sources are PR-like and solely convey promotional information, with some likely to be redressed press releases. Headlines are:

• Dolphin Computers, SSL Wireless sign deal [picture of signing ceremony]
• Bangladesh Bank has awarded PSO license to SSL Wireless [likely press release]
• Sonali bank partners with SSL wireless to provide SMS banking [picture of signing ceremony]
• Activation ceremony between NCC Bank Limited and SSL Wireless [picture of signing ceremony]
• NRB Bank Ltd. signs up SSL Wireless for Online Mobile Top Up Service [yet another picture of signing ceremony]

If an article were to be built on such sources, it would show no indications of notability or significance and would not be in compliance with WP:NOT. So delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as PR and that alone, because the fact "one of the largest" is not at all close to actually being convincing, the information and sources are themselves PR and we should not let a news source's name affect that, because that's exactly what churnalism is, it's the manipulation and taking-advantage-of the fact these "news" will be taken and published by a known news source in exchange for PR, therefore they cannot at all be taken seriously, exactly as how we were to take seriously the company's own published PR, all of the sources listed show the exact same things, what the company wants to say to its clients and investors, and that's why it was published, because there are certainly no actual journalism efforts from having the news source allow budget cuts to compromise therefore letting the company supply its own information without letting the news source take and make all of the heavywork; all of the sources above focus, I'll specify, with company and business information, funding, partnerships and other company activities, of which said company would know and know it best....and that's exactly what this current article is, specifying and stating every particle there is know about the company, and we know that only happens when the company is involved and is heavily willing to obtain clients and investors. To therefore state that "advertising can be fixed" is certainly not the case if everything is PR and that alone, and we would be kidding ourselves, if we attempted to think otherwise, especially if we actually begin calling republished PR "significant and substantial" (the one Keep vote has then not substantiated themselves after these listed concerns, therefore there's nothing to suggest accepting the said and now-clear PR sources). If we compromise at all, and not consider any of this, we become a PR webhost. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am not convinced by the above sources, and concur with K.e.coffman's analysis - David Gerard (talk) 10:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I concur with K.e.coffman's analysis as well. The sources are problematic and do not count towards WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. The quality of the sources matters a lot. If we start keeping articles based on these kind of sources, Wikipedia will become a directory of companies and a medium for promotion. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:22, 4 October 2016 (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.