Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Task Force Tips

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 no consensus. SoWhy 20:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Task Force Tips

[edit]
Task Force Tips (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)

Not very notable can find passing mentions: Bloomberg, bought the company mentioned in local paper and some articles: 1, 2 3, 4 None of these sources are in the article, do we think they are good sources, and do they demonstrate actual notability, as opposed to just something to write about for NWItimes? The article is no good, but that can be dealt with somewhere else. I did have to use some advancedsearching. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 16:22, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 16:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 16:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 16:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See above comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At WP:RSN, it is consensus (third party commentary by Only in death and The Four Deuces) that the sources I have presented are WP:RS, which debunks HighKing's argument that they are not. This does not mean the subject is notable. WP:GNG requires a significant coverage from RS. Here we must judge what constitutes significant coverage. I could likely produce more RS, but my point is that there are RS and that the article should be kept because there are multiple RS. I don't know how close multiple RS is to significant coverage by RS, but what I have shown definitely gets you down that road toward significant coverage. In most AFD debates, this is sufficient although RSN commentary makes it clear that multiple RS is not automatically significant. I just clicked on the "find sources" search links above and found three quickly. I think we all are capable of clicking on the search links above and seeing several RS now that we should all understand what an RS is.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response Please point out anywhere in my comments where we had a discussion about the reliability of the sources? I know you enjoy creating strawman arguments but it's rich when you don't even bother to read my responses. Maybe I'm being too harsh. Do you wear glasses to read (and keep forgetting to put them on)? Or perhaps English isn't your first language? Regardless, please pay attention to what is actually being said and it would also help if you actually read (with comprehension) what is being said. -- HighKing++ 12:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to add. You say that the sources you've presented are RS which debunks the argument I put forward (and no, it doesn't because I never put forward that argument or any argument based on the reliability of sources). Then you go on to state This does not mean the subject is notable. Odd. This is exactly the argument I put forward. Perhaps you missed that point during the discussion at the RS noticeboard. There, Only in death also clearly states they do not give significant coverage to confer notability which you have chosen not to highlight. Once again, this is the exact point I have made. Your position is illogical. On the one hand, you have not only clearly disagreed with me and stated complained I was POV pushing, yet on the other you have agreed with others that make the same point and you've now adopted that position yourself. I also note that you have failed to mention that the "consensus" at the RS noticeboard includes me. -- HighKing++ 16:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Keep Some RS I've found...
- [1] "The answer to this dilemma that proves that indeed, you can do more with less, is the attack monitor. The first was the Blitzfire was introduced by Task Force Tips, followed by Akron's Mercury, Elkhart's RAM, Crestar's Personal Monitor, and others." Note that while this says 'blog' in the title, it's a sponsored/hosted blog at an RS.
- [2] TFT chief marketing officer in a hosted (RS) roundtable regarding advances in firefighting foam.
- [3] Looks like they authored/published a book on nozzle operations which appears to be normative and quoted in industry press, the original appears to be here.
- [4] Products mentioned in the context of marine firefighting. Bare mention, but it's an RS outside the fire service press.
- [5] Another new product, but this looks like a press release. Here is a different RS coverage of the same product. Another industry press release covered in an RS.
- Company got sold recently
- [6] They use manufacturing robots. more coverage of same topic.
- [7] 2010 coverage of the CEO.
That's about 10 minutes of searching using only Google. Overall, that's some pretty decent RS coverage for a company that only employs 250 people. GNG is clearly met. Jclemens (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some scholar articles:
And some book references. There are a bunch of snippet views that look promising, but I can't see in detail what they say. What I can see is...
Hi Jclemens, thank you for those sources. My comments are below.
  • This firehouse article is a blog post and this fails as a Reliable Source since blogs are considered self-published and not under any editorial control, etc.
  • This firechief article is an interview with experts including a Rod Carringer. The article only mentions Task Force Tips once, which is when it provides Rod's title as "Task Force Tips' chief marketing officer". For the purposes of establishing notability, this article is not independent and it fails WP:ORGIND.
  • I cannot view this article from fireengineering.com and it isn't available in archive either. If possible, could you provide some additional information?
  • This marinelog.com article fails WP:CORPDEPTH as a "passing mention" - the article merely mentions that there is a TFT remote operated monitor installed one of the many boats described
  • This firehouse article fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH as it relies on quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources and it a press release written by Task Force Tips
  • This Bloomberg article fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH as it relies on quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources.
  • This nwtimes article fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH as it relies on quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources and is essentially a published interview with the CEO and cannot be viewed as independent.
Looking at the scholarly references and the book references (which usually yield far better results for establishing notability)
I have to say that I'm surprised TFT cannot meet the criteria for notability since it is clear that they are a well known and established brand within the (at least US) firefighting industry. I've trawled some more through the web and I have found:
If we can find one other source, I would (as always) be happy to change my !vote. -- HighKing++ 17:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you remain unconvinced, but I fear that many of the best references are in online books without preview available online--check through the Google Books links above and see if you agree. Regarding the Firehouse Blog link, I addressed that already: That's an editorially-overseen column at an RS magazine--just because it says 'blog' in the URL doesn't mean it is an unreliable source. Jclemens (talk) 02:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens It isn't whether I am convinced or unconvinced, it is whether the sources meet the criteria for establishing notability or not. I've provided my reasoning above and referenced appropriate guidelines. If you disagree (as you have with the 'blog' post) then it is up to you to point out any errors or miscomprehensions on my part. -- HighKing++ 14:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm going to disagree with a large swath of your analysis, on the basis of this quote: "*This Bloomberg article fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH as it relies on quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources." In fact, the article is not substantially or predominately based on such quotations, as if it were a press release, which means you're setting the bar far too high and unreasonably beyond what the relevant notability guidelines say. Based on what you've said in this case, I reject all your reasoning based on ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. I want to reiterate that I completely agree that Wikipedia should not be an outlet for free organizational advertising, but neither do I think we should expunge non-promotional discussion of market-leading companies. Jclemens (talk) 17:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens I assume you mean that, as an example, if my analysis of The Bloomberg article is "typical", then you are using this example and how the guidelines are applied to disagree with all of the analysis. In my opinion, that position is both unreasonable and illogical. Nevertheless, lets look at The Bloomberg article in depth in relation to what it says about TFT. In general, the article discusses industrial robots. There is no mention of TFT until the fourth paragraph which consists entirely of a quote from Steward McMillan, the CEO. The next paragraph, the fifth, is also entirely attributed to McMillan. The sixth paragraph continues in the same vein - everything is attributed to McMillan. The article then continues and uses examples of industrial robots in other companies and from manufacturers. The final paragraph in the article ends with a namecheck of McMillian again and nothing more. There are no other mentions. I believe my analysis is reasonable. This article fails WP:CORPDEPTH's "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources" and fails WP:ORGIND's "any material written by the organization, its members, or sources closely associated with it". Everything written about TFT is directly attributed to a company officer. While I disagree that my interpretation is incorrect or that the bar is being set "far too high", I am interested in learning/adjusting to ensure that I remain open-minded and as fair as possible. I've already searched and found one additional source which I believe will pass the criteria for establishing notability and I've already stated that I'm surprised that another source hasn't/can't be found. Can you provide a more in-depth explanation as to why you believe the guidelines above should not or do not apply to the Bloomberg article? Thank you. -- HighKing++ 22:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at CORPDEPTH in context, that clause is in the context of other trivial things. Thus, a single quote might not pass CORPDEPTH, but multiple, substantive quotes do. There are 12 separate bullet points, and I am interpreting quoted material in context of the other 11, which makes it clear that it's only referring to small, single quotes, not multiple paragraphs. Jclemens (talk) 23:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens, the basis of all criteria for establishing notability is that an intellectually independent source provides significant and in-depth coverage. In my opinion, if the vast majority of an article merely repeats material written by the company or one of the company's officers, it fails the criteria for establishing notability. In contrast, should an article quote from company materials or a company officer but then goes on to explain or expand on what has been said, that may show intellectual independence and a level of in-depth coverage that meets the criteria. In the examples provided above it is fairly straightforward that the journalist is simply repeating and not providing any level of intellectual independence. I know you have personal knowledge of the industry and of the various organizations operating in the industry but I cannot find another source that (to my mind) meets the criteria for establishing independence. Again, if one turns up, I'm happy to change my !vote. Having spent the past three days reading all sorts of articles, I am starting to share your frustration that one more source cannot be found. -- HighKing++ 16:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the record (i.e., Closing administrator review) I remain unconvinced by this interpretation which is exceptional among all the other criteria listed in WP:CORPDEPTH. Jclemens (talk) 19:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- completely unremarkable; the coverage is either routine (product news, executive appointments) or passing mentions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just reviewed WP:CORPDEPTH, and I've got at least a half dozen here that are more substantial than that threshold. I'd appreciate how you believe that applies to the sources in my above post (note: I know some of them are repeats), especially the last three which I added after your comment. Jclemens (talk) 03:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please remember to be pithy when commenting. At some point an admin (it won't be me) is going to have to plow through this wall of text. Be concise. Cite policies or guidelines if possible. Avoid repeating points already made. Confine your comments to what is germane to the discussion and be brief. Above all, be brief! -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To encourage more discussion about the sources put forth....
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 04:38, 30 June 2017 (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/Task_Force_Tips&oldid=1143883697"