Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Truxedo

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. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Truxedo

Truxedo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I can't find secondary sources establishing the notability of this company (it seems to be a company with a product of the same name) excepting car-related or commercial sites. I nominated the article essentially for other opinions, I'm too unfamiliar with the subject and I don't know if the sources given by google are reliable. I know that we can't compare big and small companies on the same basis, but still, I'm not sure that [1] is satisfied . -- Cenarium (talk) 16:05, 18 and 3:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I can. This product is sold at dozens of secondary websites, all sorts of car accessories retailers, and returns over 255,000 hits. You can see it retailed here,here,here,here,or here, or look it up on Google. And while a news search may not return any results, try looking up tonneau cover. Wikilost (talk) 23:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
But are they reliable sources ? And I don't think that this search for tonneau can help. -- Cenarium (talk) 03:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't find anything in WP:RS to say they're not reliable sources. I tend to imagine that as far as a product goes, retailers would be reliable sources about it's noteworthiness, which, of course is why this article is being Afd'd isn't it? Wikilost (talk) 06:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment It seems that no one is interested in this afd, still, I think that the problem of whether retailers are decent sources for an encyclopedic content is relevant. -- Cenarium (talk) 01:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, retailers are reliables sources for noteworthiness. No, retailers are not reliable sources for quality or other isuues, I agree. But the article makes no references to quality. Wikilost (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as insufficiently notable per WP:CORP. Neither the company or its products have yet received non-trivial coverage by published reliable sources. — Satori Son 16:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • delete A retailer is of course going to feel that any product they sell is notable. There is nothing I can see that makes this particular maker of tonneu covers notable other than the catchy name. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, assuming no INDEPENDENT sources emerge substantially discussing this product. --Dhartung | Talk 21:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep (please, please keep) The retailers may not be reliable sources by themselves, but the great number of them carrying this product prove how notable it is. 12.180.10.10 (talk) 13:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Retailers propose a mass of product to sell, it's a commercial strategy, I think that among them, only a few are notable for encyclopedic purposes. WP:CORP help us to make this distinction, and Truxedo doesn't meet the criteria, hence I support the deletion. -- Cenarium (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
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.