Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomas Gorny (4th nomination)
by all means as the main policies here at hat Wikipedia is not and aid, considering the history and also of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nextiva (3rd nomination) and Draft:Nextiva, both with clear promotional changes and users, including some of them now come-and-go accounts so WP:Sockpuppetry likely applies there. These three are main policies of which we use every day here, especially in company or business articles, so this is a no exception. We allow time for improvements when there's confirmed changes, not when  SOURCES or . As mentioned, if someone ever wants an article, it's best to restart it with pre-reviewed changes, especially if there's chances of violating our paid-user policy. Although there are claims of "fixing" as shown https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tomas_Gorny&action=history here, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tomas_Gorny&offset=20170324012912&action=history the next page actually then shows there's been nothing but the previous old AfD-material, thus showing any new claims of supposed improvements are stalling, not beneficial to an encyclopedia. ''In fact'', the current article still has the same elements of advertising as shown by his largest section advertised "Business" followed by "PR awards", which is (as shown by WP:GNG), not ever a convincing factor. Simply because a Wikipedian started this article is not an entire defense in our policies, since there's the obvious fact of the company's article not only being deleted, but it was campaigned by several COI people there
— User:SwisterTwister, 17:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:W||WP:P||WP:THEREMUSTBE||WP:ITSNOTABLE (Help:Watchlist)