Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everwin Pneumatic


 * 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Everwin Pneumatic

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An advert. A highly detailed advert, but still an advert. Despite namedropping of its competition, no real sign of notability. Calton | Talk 06:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * KEEP: Immediately received careful revision and removal of all contents that may be considered subjective and biased after the article was given the notice of a proposal for deletion. As of now, the article seems neutral and objective enough to be a purely academic article. As a result, I strongly oppose against the idea of deletion. W22593889 (talk) 08:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: W22593889 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

*KEEP: I say this page at its present state is formatted correctly from a neutral point of view and is of a notable subject, it should stay on Wikipedia. I don't see signs of this article being an advert and through a google search, the subject is indeed notable in it's sector. Andywayno (talk) 09:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC) — Andywayno (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Striking comment per Sockpuppet investigations/Andywayno.


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:NORG, =WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES, WP:CORPSPAM. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete above arguments fail to show in any way how the company meets WP:NCORP. The article is currently sourced to the company website and other non-independent/non-reliable sources; unable to find anything in the way of sourcing Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment How is an archived article from the official website of Stanley Black and Decker an "non-independent/non-reliable source"? I should think that having a close relationship with a Fortune 500 company of the United States should make the topic of this article notable enough. W22593889 (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a press release from a company buying shares in this company: it unambiguously fails, being non-independent (involved party) and a non-reliable source (press release). --Calton | Talk 07:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

KEEP: This page is well-formatted, neutral and while the subject isn't a household name, it is notable in its sector. Wikipedia is about sharing true information from a neutral point of view for users who wish to learn more regarding field of the subject and; this page does just that. If notability of the subject and reliability of cited sources are determined by individuals who have insufficient knowledge regarding the subject, it would be extremely difficult to spread truthful but less-known information from users who are willing to share. 210.242.86.75 (talk) 03:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC) — 210.242.86.75 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Striking comment per Sockpuppet investigations/Andywayno.
 * It's odd to use adjectives like "well-formatted" and "neutral" -- the exact terms used by User:Andywayno above, in fact -- to describe an article. Tell me, what does formatting have to do with notability standards? --Calton | Talk 06:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * *"well-formatted" and "neutral" have little to do with notability standards, its simple shows that the article displays truthful and genuine information about the subject; information the page creators strive to share with readers who wish to learn about the said subject. Now please tell me User:Calton, what knowledge do you have of the pneumatic tool industry that makes you such an expert to judge a subject's notability in this particular sector?

210.242.86.75 (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC) Striking comment per Sockpuppet investigations/Andywayno.  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Can we have some comments from more experienced editors?

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails NCORP. SpinningSpark 17:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The company has no signficant coverage in any reliable sources (not counting brief mentioning in personal blogs or PR releases). And the whole article is an obvious promotional advert, especially seeing how desperate someone is to keep this article by creating a bunch of sock accounts for voting "Keep" in this nomination. I'd vote "Delete" just based on that fact alone, even if the company would have an in-depth coverage in WSJ, NY Times, CNN, Fox and dozens of other publications.Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 20:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. References fail the criteria for establishing notability. Topic therefore fails GNG and NCORP.  HighKing++ 18:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.