Talk:Dayco

Contested deletion

 * This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (Dayco Products is a $1 billion company with over 4000 employees) --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The article can also be redirected to Mark IV Industries. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Jax 0677, Dayco is no longer part of Mark IV Industries group. Then we can't redirect to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ER.Digital (talk • contribs) 16:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested changes (COI)

 * Tazerdadog, please remove that Dayco Products is formerly known as Mark IV Industries! Dayco is no longer part of this group. also if possible, add this citation: "Dayco is a global leader in the research, design, manufacturing and distribution of essential engine products, drive systems and services for automobiles, trucks, construction, agriculture and industry." Thanks.


 * Not done. Is it not factual that Dayco was formerly known as Mark IV industries?  It says so in citation 1 (Wall Street Journal).  I can add a citation if it really is controversial, but that's about it.  The second piece, that "Dayco is a global leader in the research, design, manufacturing and distribution of essential engine products, drive systems and services for automobiles, trucks, construction, agriculture and industry."  is not neutrally phrased.  Wikipedia must be written from a Neutral point of view.  Additionally, see what wikipedia is not.  In addition, that phrase appears to be taken directly from the Dayco homepage, which has copyright implications.I know that this is not what you wanted to hear, but I hope you understand.  Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 06:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

about the phrase I suggested to add, it is not covered by any copyright. this is just what the company do. Thanks. ER.Digital (talk) 07:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Tazerdadog, about Mark IV Industries, is it not factual. MarkIV was the holding group owned this company. Dayco always been an independent company and brand, that's why I suggest to remove ani citation to Mark IV.


 * Regarding Mark IV industries, I also found this article http://www.reuters.com/article/markiv-sale-idUSN1E76I1NU20110719 which suggests that the parent company was mark IV, but the only subsidiary was dayco as you said. It also said that mark IV was known as DAYCO.  Would you like to propose a rewording of the phrase in the article to make it more correct?  It seems like Mark IV should be mentioned in the article though.  Regarding the "Dayco is a global leader..." phrase, absolutely not.  Even if copyright was a non-issue, it's still very non-neutral.  There are ways to get the approval to publish it in wikipedia, but the phrase will not be included in the article because it is not neutral.  Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 08:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Tazerdadog, if we can rewording teh phrase would be great. just to avoid any confusion. Thanks ER.Digital (talk) 13:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. The ball is in your court to suggest a phrase that clarifies the Mark IV - Dayco relationship in a concise, neutral, and verifiable manner. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

COI editing
There's COI editing going on in this article. I'm notified the editors involved. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Slogan
I have reverted the addition of a slogan - I do not feel that it contributes to the page, and it seems kind of promotional. Let's discuss this, and then add it if we decide it's valuable. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Tazerdadog, slogan added is not a kind of promotional. it is a Tagline under trademark, and then considered entire part of the company identity brand. ER.Digital (talk) 07:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Wikipedia is not here to promote your brand.  It's here to provide encyclopedic content to our readers.  However, the inclusion/exclusion of the slogan is an area where I very well might be wrong.  Would you like to get a third opinion on this?  Tazerdadog (talk) 08:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Tazerdadog, I disagree too. tagline is not a sort of promotion. we are not mentioning any product and so on! Then also show a logo is like a promotion? ER.Digital (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I personally don't see any value in adding a slogan. To me this is promotional. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Perfect, all clear. Can we cleanup this talk section? 2.238.72.109 (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm going to leave it open for ~ a week in case another uninvolved editor stumbles on it, but after that, yeah, I'll archive this section. Tazerdadog (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)