Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fir Tex

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. While not overly blatant advertising, it would still require an almost-complete overhaul, and the sources don't appear to be particularly indicative of "significant coverage," given that some don't actually mention "Fir Tex" or "Fir Vest" and that some are press releases. —fetch·comms 03:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fir Tex

[edit]
Fir Tex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is simple advertisement for a product which also has no claims to notability. It has no independent references and claims made for product cannot be verified and are unsubstantiated. References, that I have removed, refer to the company's own web-site which use quasi scientific gobbledegook, which has no meaning, to sell a product. The fact that Red Bull have been persuaded (?) is no reason for Wikipedia to be duped. This article was tagged for speedy delete, was deleted but then restored at the request of the original editor  Velella  Velella Talk   11:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. Nothing more I can say. Doc Quintana (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Keep I'm fine with the rewrite. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment \Keep While I was the original creator of the page, I was adding it on behalf of User:Dicky747. The text I 'wrote' was mainly from various failed AFC submissions, and a userspace draft. I requested that it be restored simply on the grounds that it didn't look like unambiguous advertising, but as I noted in my message to the deleting admin, it did have a primary source problem. If I could fix the primary source problem and shorten to remove the apparent likeness to an advert, I would do so. Then the only remaining issue would be the notability, which I guess will ultimately decided by the outcome of this AFD. Thanks,Acather96 (talk) 18:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It may be worth noting that Dicky747 noted above as the instigating author has only edited this article and talk pages associated with to such an extent that there is a risk that one might consider whether there is COI here.  Velella  Velella Talk   19:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will fix the article by 19:00 UTC Acather96 (talk) 16:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I hope this rectifies the problems presented.Acather96 (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Questions
    • As I see remarks about no independent references, could someone then explain to me if the Dutch Olympic Committee and Dutch Handball Federation are no independent references? Basically you are saying that they are thus not independent, correct?
    • Other question: Do you really think that an organisation such as RedBull Racing, with more then 400 persons working for 2 cars, would go into an innovation partnership with FIR-TEX if they had not tested the product? This is not sponsorhip, which is a totally different story, no money is involved! I hope to get answers to this questions, thank you Flying Dutchman 22:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dicky747 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per WP:NOTADVERTISING. Article would need to be rewritten from the ground up to maintain NPOV. Article also lacks "significant coverage" in reliable sources to establish notability per WP:N. Uncle Dick (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It is advertising that would need a major re-write to fix, have big questions with regard to notability as well. Codf1977 (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Advertising-language in the article is not egregious to the extent requiring deletion. The links procured by User: Ged UK appear to establish the notability of the product.--PinkBull 23:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete under G11- Unambiguous Advertising, Article would require fundamental rewrite to bring up to par. Mr. R00t Talk 00:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the lack of reliable sources. I have reviewed the sources posted by Ged UK and the sources in the article and have been unable to find significant coverage in secondary reliable sources. Many of the sources provided fail to even mention "Fir Tex", while the rest are either press releases or passing mentions. An article being promotional is not a reason in itself for deletion, but when there are no third-party reliable sources that provide nontrivial coverage about the topic, the article should be deleted for failing Wikipedia:Notability. Cunard (talk) 01:33, 26 August 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fir_Tex&oldid=1054030101"