Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Competition cams (2nd nomination)


 * 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   Keep and severely trim out OR/PROMO material.  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Competition cams
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Since this page continues to be reposted, I will bring this article back to AfD. This article is about a non-notable company that has no supporting references. Article has been deleted several times before under various guises, please see previous AfD as well.  TN ‑  X   - Man  19:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - As far as I can see, all the previous deletions were done as speedy deletions. The first AFD didn't run to conclusion it would seem as it was speedy deleted as blatant advertising.  We should let this one run its course. -- Whpq (talk) 19:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as spam and salt to prevent recreation. Perhaps a block is in order for the serial recreator, as well? ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  19:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not a "serial recreator," nor do I appreciate you jumping into a discussion which you know absolutely nothing about. The article is significant to many people, which I intend to prove. As for RepublicanJacobite, I will accept your apology for the personal attack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabarke1 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC) — Jabarke1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete - As it stands, the article reads like advertising. The references provided in the article do not constitute reliable sources for establishing notability.  A further search on my own finds what look to be press releases in Google News, but nothing to support notability. -- Whpq (talk) 19:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - changing opinion based on articles about the company and product reviews. -- Whpq (talk) 02:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

How does the article read like advertising? Do you even know what the guidelines for ad writing are? I do. I'm a copywriter. Be that as it may, there is no stated opinion, "we", "our", "you", any other pronoun or directive speech which constitutes advertising's writing style. Therefore, I have no clue from where Whpq's comment came. Also, the reliable sources are in the market research conducted by SEMA, which handles the industry's research and reports these findings to the census bureau. I cited the association as a reference for a reason! --Jabarke1 (talk) 20:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC) — Jabarke1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I urge you all to read the article thoroughly before voting. Just because one editor says something, that doesn't give you the go ahead to ignorantly agree before reading. The reason for recreation is that everything written in the article has been edited and improved each time. I have seen the speedy ignorance of bandwagon jumping already occur in this room with RepublicanJacobite's narrow-minded comment. I urge you all to be open-minded and intelligent with both your voting and your editing, although I doubt this will happen. I would also appreciate any DIRECT advice on how to approve the article. This I also consider to be a long shot. --Jabarke1 (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC) — Jabarke1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Good question. Out of curiosity, did someone research writing an ad? After reviewing the below links & re-reading the Competition Cams page, I do not see any advertising writing. If you take a moment to review the links, you will notice all of the sites have about the same idea.

http://startupinternetmarketing.com/pagelinks/how2ad.html http://www.reiclub.com/articles/killer-ad-copy http://www.marketingtoday.com/marcom/writeads.htm http://advertising.about.com/od/copywriting/a/guestbottomline.htm http://www.sema.org/main/semaorghome.aspx?id=57377#Marketing_Advertising (this site contains many presentations)

Also, I compared the Competition Cams page to Edelbrock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edelbrock), Ford Motor Company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Motor), General Motors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_motors) & Dodge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge). The only differences to be seen are… 1.	They use their own site to reference some information (thought that was against your rules) 2.	Use magazine articles as references. Depending on the article, it can sound like an advertisement because they want to make the company they are writing for sound like the best

It is hard to comprehend why the above-listed companies are able to have a page, but Competition Cams is not. I also don’t understand the spam comment?

What is considered a reliable resource? A page on your site? A reference to the company’s site (again, thought this was against the rules)? If someone were to provide an example of a “reliable resource” Competition Cams would be able to use it. --Trenay (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC) — User:Trenay (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Reply - with regards to advertising, the article reads like a press release designed to promote the company. That's how it appears to me, and it seems to be the opinion of other editors as well.  with respect to reliable sources, the link has been posted multiple times although you may have missed clicking on it.  WP:RS.  As for the other articles, see WP:N for notability, and WP:WAX for "What about article X?". -- Whpq (talk) 14:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Dennis,
 * Delete . I don't see much notable, other than that there are plenty of people who sell or work with the parts they make.  If anyone has some good reliable sources, I'll change my mind. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 21:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Reconsidered my nomination. The only thing the magazine articles do is promote the product.  Nothing more has changed.  Going with speedy delete and salt at this point - speedy because it only seems to be spam, salt because the author has promised to recreate. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 22:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I suppose being the host or sponsor of some of the biggest events in racing is not notable, nor is the fact that the company is pioneering the use of ion nitriding for valve train parts. The reason I didn't post or source is that the COMP site and other smaller sites only provide this exclusive information. Another reason is that the intelligent, open-minded editors would consider that too to be advertising, in all likeliness. --Jabarke1 (talk) 21:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC) — Jabarke1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Dennis,

“I don't see much notable, other than that there are plenty of people who sell or work with the parts they make.” – I throughly contest this comment. Please read any magazine article using a product. A magazine article helps sell the product. If this is your argument, you should protest anyone using an article as a resource. --Trenay (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC) — User:Trenay (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Please reconsider the deletion of this article, as I have edited it to help with neutrality, and I recently added a topic in that will make the company SIGNIFICANTLY notable! Thanks.--Jabarke1 (talk) 21:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC) — Jabarke1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Trenay, you then contest that people use the product, and that it is not notable? =) You need to come up with sources proving notability, not merely protest my commentary in indignance.  Indignant protest means nothing if you can't prove notability. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 01:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Dennis the Tiger. I'm not satisfied that notability has been asserted. X Marx the Spot (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and Salt article recreated from speedy by SPA. 0 significant gnews hits about the company, no WP:RS present in article that would establish notability. They exist, they sponsor some kind of minor racing prize, but the company doesn't have any real coverage. Article is borderline as qualifying for speedy again, since there isn't any strong claim presented for why they should even potentially be notable. Horrorshowj (talk) 22:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

“They exist, they sponsor some kind of minor racing prize, but the company doesn't have any real coverage.” – This comment is confusing. Not any real coverage? Please do a search on the following websites, or watch a portion of a NASCAR (http://www.nascar.com/guides/sponsors/ you will need to scroll down the page). , NHRA (http://www.nhra.com/sponsors/2008_NatContingency.html), etc. You will see by viewing these items Compeition Cams does have a dominate presence. If magazine articles are your choice, visit Hot Rod magazine’s website & do a search on Competition Cams. Also, if you want more sources, Competition Cams can provide them. --Trenay (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC) — User:Trenay (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Speedy Delete and Salt - article is obvious spam created only to promote the company. The attempt to confuse the issue by including a load of useless references which don't cover the subject in accordance with the verifiability policy doesn't change the underlying advertising nature of the article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete and Salt per the above editors. In addition I think that Jabarke1 probably warrants a block, following this edit in which he says that (s)he "...will continue to recreate this page until it stays should you rudely delete a my well-researched hard work."  --  JediLofty Talk to meFollow me 12:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

For each of your points, please see my above statements. It seems like there is a witch hunt for Competition Cams and/or Jabarke1. He should not be blocked. If you are going to make an exception for Edelbrock, Ford, GM, & Dodge, why can't Competition Cams and Jabarke1 have the same rules? --Trenay (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC) — User:Trenay (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * They do have the same rules. Unfortunately, Competition cams doesn't conform to the rules as has been pointed out by many people. In an effort to WP:AGF I won't comment on the Jabarke1 situation until the sockpuppetry case has been decided one way or the other. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted material, then lock that article and  block ban the user. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 15:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - despite this being the second nomination, this article has never been deleted through AFD. The previous version was speedy deleted.  G4 doesn't apply. -- Whpq (talk) 16:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

As this pointless martyr of a decent article about a notable company with good research to support it is occurring, I have no choice but to nominate those that obviously didn't read the article and posted "Speedy Delete and Salt" as socketpuppets by way of being meatpuppets for user  TN ‑  X   - Man  19:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Good luck to each of you. --Jabarke1 (talk) 19:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC) — Jabarke1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment - Disruptive behaviour won't cause this article to be kept. Third-party coverage in reliable sources establishing the notability Competition Cams is what will result in this article being kept.  I haven't seen any of this coverage.  I haven't found any of this coverage in any search I've conducted.  Trenay has hinted that there are magazine articles.  If you can produced these magazine articles, then they could be evaluated here in this discussion. -- Whpq (talk) 19:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Gladly. All of the following articles have extensive mention & coverage of the company and its products:

1. 154 Stories/Articles in Circle Track Magazine



2. 193 articles in Hot Rod Magazine mentioning COMP-

3.10 articles in Super Chevy Magazine mentioning COMP-

4. Stories in The Commercial Appeal about the company or its events







5. 239 articles in Car Craft



These are only a small percentage of the magazine/newspaper articles that Trenay was talking about. When you've looked at that, and possibly attempt to refute these sources (all of which have massive readership), then I will provide you with an even bigger list. Until then, blast away!!! --Jabarke1 (talk) 21:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC) — Jabarke1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Reply - Can you point out which article are specifically about the company? A link to search results is not useful.  The first result in Circle Track doesn't even appear to mention the company.  And a quick scan of some of the other links mentions the company name, or quotes somebody from the company, but is not about the company. -- Whpq (talk) 22:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Well Whpq, I can tell that you didn't read very far at all. The MAJORITY of the articles on the Circle Track page you just mentioned are specifically about the company or one of its products. Like I just said, there are HUNDREDS of articles and stories about the company. If you want specifics, then the page will be full. If you really searched COMP Cams and didn't come up with anything solid earlier, then you are either a liar or simply ignorant. I say that not as a personal attack, but rather through the frustration of the fact that it took me 5 minutes to gather the above-mentioned articles. How can you or any other EDITOR OF AN ENCYCLOPEDIA NOT find anything? --Jabarke1 (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC) — Jabarke1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Oh and by the way, a "quick scan" is ridiculous. This is a serious matter, and you CONSIDER yourselves to be academics. Therefore, a quick scan is academic laziness, and should bring aide to no conclusion in any direction. --Jabarke1 (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC) — Jabarke1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Reply - Yes, this is a serious matter and I am taking it seriously. I am keeping an open mind, and can be persuaded.  But you aren't particularly helpful.  The onus for providing references is on the article creator.  I don't see notability here, and I'm not going to read through about 500 search results trying to find articles about the company when the results include anything that happens to have the word cam in it, which not surprisingly is a very common word in automotive magazines. -- Whpq (talk) 23:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

 External Links: 
 *  Delete  (striking !vote until I've had a chance to review the article's latest updates) Ok, I went through the first 50 or so Google hits for "Competition cams". What I found was: 1) the company website, 2) merchants selling the product, 3) the Wikipedia article and 4) blogs.  On Google News, all I found were some articles about acquisitions.  None of these seem to constitute reliable secondary sources that would provide information to meet the notability guidelines.  I also went through the external links/references section (note: I'm aware that the external links aren't necessarily referenced, but since they were in the References section, I checked them out anyway ok, the references and external links are the same).
 * http://compcams.com/DefaultWide.asp - This is fairly obviously not a secondary source.
 * http://powerperformancenews.com/ - Not sure what this has to do with anything beyond being a performance automotive site.
 * http://compperformancegroup.com/ - Also fairly obviously not a secondary source.
 * http://www.alexa.com/data/details/main/compcams.com - Site traffic ranking. Not sure what this is supposed to show (if anything).
 * http://sema.org/MemberDirectory/frmMemberDetail.aspx - Wouldn't load for me.
 * http://www.semahof.com/inductees.aspx - Wouldn't load for me.
 * http://www.sema.org/Main/Login.aspx?ReturnUrl=%2fmarketresearch%2ftermsconditions.aspx - Wouldn't load for me.
 * http://www.zekesauto.com/en/history.html - OK, it's a distributor for the product. Nothing here to indicate notability.
 * http://www.semahalloffame.com/company.aspx - Wouldn't load for me.
 * http://www.compcams.com/nitriding/ - Also not a secondary source, appears to be a product promotion page.
 * http://www.enginebuildermag.com/Article/16042/comp_cams_pro_plasma_nitriding_service.aspx - Appears to be a semi-promotional video. It certainly isn't mainstream media coverage - appears to be more of a "How it's made" type thing.
 * http://www.powerperformancenews.com/forum/essence-comp-cams-pro-plasma-nitriding-1327.html - Reads a bit like a press release.

As for the 7 links posted above: 1,2,3 and 7 are all run by the same company - Source Interlink Media, Inc. Per their website: The Source Interlink Media - Automotive Digital Group is where millions go to find anything and everything automotive, including the lifestyles embodied in each of our unique markets. Let us help you find effective ways to communicate your message to customers while they research and purchase products. Basically, they're a marketing website. Edit: while these sites are owned by a common owner which is a marketing company, I don't know that the articles on the site can be or are paid for by sponsors. I'm a little suspicious of it, though.

4,5 and 6 are more about the race than the company. While it's mildly interesting that the races are sponsored, I don't think it's nearly enough to establish notability. -- BeezHive (talk|contribs) 03:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  14:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  14:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

BeezHive,

First of all, I highly doubt that you went through 50 Google hits, seeing as how I found more than you mentioned in less than 30. This goes to show your lack of credibility. Regarding the sources you mentioned, the little number behind a sentence is known as a reference to a footnote. Had you taken the time to read the sentences, you could have noticed why these sources were placed in the article. The COMP Performance Group link is provided to back up the second paragraph of the article that mentions the holding company to which COMP Cams. Therefore, do a little work and actual research next time before you post a pompous remark based on nothing but hot wind. --64.132.150.76 (talk) 14:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - if you have found more than Beehive, then please put these forward. Requests for specific articles about the company just generate some handwaving about them being available.  -- Whpq (talk) 15:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - Regardless of your doubts, I did go through the Google hits. I won't even address your assertion that I lack credibility beyond to say that it's completely baseless.  I spent somewhere between 45 minutes and an hour last night trying to find reliable sources that would satisfy the notability requirements for this article and failed.  I will make an effort to review the sources (recently added below) later today, but for now my !vote stands.   -- BeezHive (talk|contribs) 17:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

EXCLUSIVE COMPANY & PRODUCT INNOVATION ARTICLES


 * 
 * http://offroadbusinessmag.off-road.com/offroadbusinessmag/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=432470&sk=&date=&pageID=2
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

I'll post more later today --Jabarke1 (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC) — Jabarke1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment Ok, I've looked over the above sources.
 * The first article (nortonabrasives.com pdf) is published by an abrasives manufacturer. Per the PDF, they're a supplier to Comp Cams - this is more of a PR piece for Norton Abrasives than a news article.
 * The second article (offroadbusinessmag.off-road.com) has a source "COMP Cams Inc." (see page 3 of the article). Not really sure what to make of this one, but it seems PR-ish to me.  I know that's not quantifiable, but that's my opinion.
 * The third article (competitionplus.com) was "Written by CompetitionPlus". Definitely not independent.
 * On to the fourth source (musclemustangfastfords.com) - this is another of the articles from Source Interlink Media. See my comments from before about them; I'm still unsure about their independence/reliability.
 * Same again for the fifth (chevyhiperformance.com).
 * Number 6 (maxchevy.com): article that's more about "beehive springs" than about Comp Cams.
 * And the last one (carcraft.com) - another one from Source Interlink Media. This one's a comparison between some products.
 * After review of these, I'm afraid that my !vote stands. -- BeezHive (talk|contribs) 01:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'e had a chance to review theese in more detail, and I've come to a slightly different conclusion than Beezhive. I agree the first article is essentially a PR piece and can be discounted.  And the last article is not enough of a source.  But the Offroad mag article is about the company and the other articles are comprehensive reviews of the the company's products.  These are specialty magazine/websites but the company is a specialty company so this is where one would expect the coverage to be.  With these sources, I think notability can be established. -- Whpq (talk) 02:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Delete and salt per nom. Themfromspace (talk) 17:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Reply - In regards to notability, COMP Cams holds over 50 patents in their respective industry and 42 of the 43 NASCAR engines that qualify weekly run their camshafts. --Jabarke1 (talk) 18:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Additionally, here is a link to various articles about the company's product line-  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabarke1 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt -- This seems to be a NN company . Attendence trade shows and sports sponsorship are merely forms of advertising and do not render the company notable.  Once the article has that sort of triia removed there is not much left.  I am far from sure that coverage in trade rags and fan mags (which the external sources cited seem to be make it notable.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have made edits to the article and added more significant sources. Please look at these changes and also these two sources for significant listings of Competition Cams' notable contributions.
 * 
 * --Jabarke1 (talk) 22:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * For the moment I retain my opinion. Jabarke1 will help his case if he deletes the trivia from the article and concentrates on explaining in the text of the article what makes it notable.  Continual interjections from the creator (with a single purpose account) into this discussion between WP editors amkes it very difficult for the rest of us to have a coherent discussion on this.  Holding a large number of patents is potential evidcne of notability, but this is not mentioend in the article (as far as I can see).  Being the leading component manufacturer for a niche product might conceivably be, but I have my doubts.  I may reconsider my view if the article is significantly improved and references are external links are put into a more usual format, so that it is immediately possible to see what they are.  However, at present I remain unconvinced of the article's merits.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - The Competition Cams article has been completely rewritten and re-cited with new, more credible sources. I urge each of the editors that has previously voted against the articles notability, neutrality, etc. to please reconsider. --Jabarke1 (talk) 20:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep (changing my vote) -- Jabarke1 has done a good deal to show that the company has modest notability, pointing to patents and being a leader in its field.  This may be a small field, but that is beyond my knowledge.  I have just removed a long list of sponsored events (as non-encyclopaedic), but think the creator has now addressed the difficulties raised, so that the article is now perhaps worth keeping.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - but a lot of the promotional, "look what an innovator we've been and how important our founder is" stuff still has to be ripped out. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - I'm going out on a limb here. Even after the initial confrontational tone of the author during this AfD, a refactoring of my AfD nomination statement, and a possible sockpuppetry case, I'm going to say this article should be kept. The author seems to have gradually reformed his editing and has added some decent sources. I can only hope that Jabarke1 continues to contribute good, well-sourced, material. Cheers!  TN ‑  X   - Man  16:43, 26 September 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.