Talk:Polytan

Advertisement
I chose to make this an advertisement because in my opinion it is a slight bit to enthusiastic about Polytan. I can imagine all is true, but then again every advertisement is true, or illegal.

Also I can't imagine why this would not be formal enough. I won't remove that though, because I might be gravely mistaken.

Nazgjunk||(talk) 17:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Right on. Very advertise-y. - Plasticbadge (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Objecting proposed deletion
I would like to explain my 19 January edit (Special:Diff/1134597663):


 * The lead section was very promotional, and the article also included some unencyclopaedic wording. I understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not an advertising platform per WP:NOTADVERT. Thus, I have removed promotional content and puffery, such as "full vertical production", "CO2-neutral synthetic turf", and "Green technology". I also removed the "Business areas" section because it was just plain advertising. Initially, I tried fixing it, but I felt it is best to remove it and replace it with a very short products section. Wikipedia may mention what Polytan produces and offers, but not describe it in ridiculous detail. Wikipedia is not a place for propagating a firm's products, and I want to fix the article in this regard.
 * Virtually half of the references were just bare links to other Wikimedia projects, which is obviously not compliant with Wikipedia's WP:RS policy, or is it? To fix this, I have put a lot of effort into finding good, reliable secondary sources that discuss the article's contents in sufficient detail so that all information is verifiable, and to demonstrate the topic's notability. Yes, this is a radical change, but a needed and undoubtably good one. If I understand WP:V correctly, then this article's contents must be verifiable – establishing verifiability was one of my main goals with editing this article.

Sadly, these – in my honest opinion very much needed – improvements were reverted. I agree that the content prior to my 19 January edit is too promotional, and not worth saving. It needs to be fixed. However, the best way to do this is by improving the article, which I have done. The proposed deletion template explicitly states that if one can address the said concern (i.e., that the article is too promotional, and that it is not clear whether or not the subject is notable), then this person shall please edit this page and improve the article. I have done that. Today's second proposed deletion (Special:Diff/1134600659) is also not okay, because per WP:PRD, articles may only once be proposed for deletion, and not multiple times. So, instead of deletion, I propose improving the article, e.g., like this. Kind regards, --WeMakeSport $ (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I have removed the proposed deletion notice. I have also created a copy of the article at User:WeMakeSport $/sandbox, which is your sandbox and you are free to do pretty much anything you want to there. Why don't you re-write the article as you think it should be, and then come back here and we'll get it reviewed? 10mmsocket (talk) 17:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that sounds good. I'll further improve the article in my sandbox, but I suppose it might take a couple of weeks. I'll ping you when it's done. Kind regards, --WeMakeSport $ (talk) 17:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No hurry. Take your time to get it right and minimise any conflict of interest. 10mmsocket (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2023 (UTC)