Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Technologies Network Corporation


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

American Technologies Network Corporation

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article does not meet the notability guidelines for Wikipedia. Much effort has been made on the part of Phantomsteve to research notability, but none was found. The creator and main editor, Stripedfox, has admitted to COI. See the talk page for a detailed discussion between Stripedfox and Phantomsteve. I had previously proposed this for deletion, but since it was controversial, the PROD was removed, therefore I am now nominating through this method. Joshua Scott (talk) 02:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC) I wanted to ask all of you several questions about this article and about Wikipedia guidelines. As I understand, the main argument was that all of the publications I signed were promotional and ATN maybe have payed money for the material about their company. And for example "The New York Times" is more trusted and respected magazine. But, as I know, publishing in "The New York Times" also costs money. Two years ago to place the article to the first page of this magazine was nearly 2000$. Now, I think, it is much more expensive. So, the first question is, do you consider that only that magazines which take more money for the place on their pages than the rest are more trusted than others? As for the next question, I have already written about this some time ago and I want to repeat this again. This company does not produce products of daily use, but it offers equipment for Army, Law Enforcement, Police, hunting, hiking etc. So, I think that this branch is enough important for the general Encyclopedia like this one. And as for the night vision and thermal night vision, do you really think that these inventions are not enough important for the world? And ATN were the fist who has developed some technologies for this branch, that many other companies now use (It is in my article). Also I wanted to ask you to be so kind and list that magazines, publications and Award nominations that can be verified specifically for this industry. And I ask you not to write platitudes but to list concrete publications, which can really be interested to write an article about this company сonsidering it's specificity without money and which are really enough trusted for Wikipedia. Because I think that if there is no enough trusted sources for this concrete theme, it does not mean that this information is not interesting for Encyclopedia, that only means that there is info that is not enough developed in magazines, but despite that it still has it's informational value. And for the last one, I give you the link to the list of magazines and PDF files of the publications about this company. This list is constantly updated and I hope that you will find respected in this area magazines there that will be enough trusted for Wiki. And I also wanted to recall that in other Encyclopedias only subject specialists approve articles, so if you are Language Specialist you should correct and approve only text, but not the informational content I think. And to approve or deny the article I will kindly ask you to consult with specialists in this concrete theme. That is all, I hope you will review your opinion after consulting with specialists about this theme and I will wait for your decision.Stripedfox | Talk 10:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. A lot of effort has gone into to this article and I know Stripedfox had the best intentions, but as stated other than a few press releases, court documents, and minor information there seems to be no independent reliable sources. WP:COMPANY. Daa89563 (talk) 03:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've notified Stripedfox and Phantomsteve of this AfD discussion. Joshua Scott (talk) 04:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete As detailed on the conversation on the talk page, the sources provided do not indicate notability as defined by Wikipedia's guidelines. Despite several searches for independent reliable sources, I was unable to find any. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 10:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * At first, I wanted to thank all participants of this conversation for their attention.
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * Comment. I randomly checked six or seven magazine scans from the above mentioned page. They contained little but press releases and product advertisements—definitely not something that can pass WP:RS. — Rankiri (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  08:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  08:35, 1 February 2010 (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.