Talk:Copernic Agent
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Paul-Michel in topic Speedy deletion rationale
 | Text and/or other creative content from Copernic Agent was copied or moved into Copernic with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 30 July 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was merge to Copernic. |
Speedy deletion rationale
editThe article reads like advertising and, going by the user name and the evidence, was written by Paul-Michel DeBlois, the company's web marketing agent. See http://copernic.blogs.com/. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- I have never said I did not work for Copernic, and I am in fact a marketing agent. But the reason I am creating articles on our products is because when I can across Copernic's page, it was plenty of false information. This page is simply a description of what it does and what it does not do. It is in no way more of an advertisement than Google desktop's page. Should you decide to delete this page, you should also consider deleting any other product's page. Paul-Michel (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- If Bill Gates had written the Microsoft article and it was all about the great things his products could do, yes, it would have been deleted as advertising or at least as a violation of WP:NPOV. In the case of your product, I don't see any references or evidence of notability either. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Also, writing about entities involving a conflicts of interest is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Well, instead of speed deleting it, you could ahve it proof read and verified in order to make sure everything is objective. Everything is, so I would not mind Paul-Michel (talk) 19:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)