Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fir Tex


 * 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. While not overly blatant advertising, it would still require an almost-complete overhaul, and the sources don't appear to be particularly indicative of "significant coverage," given that some don't actually mention "Fir Tex" or "Fir Vest" and that some are press releases.  — fetch ·  comms   03:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Fir Tex

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article is simple advertisement for a product which also has no claims to notability. It has no independent references and claims made for product cannot be verified and are unsubstantiated. References, that I have removed, refer to the company's own web-site which use quasi scientific gobbledegook, which has no meaning, to sell a product. The fact that Red Bull have been persuaded (?) is no reason for Wikipedia to be duped. This article was tagged for speedy delete, was deleted but then restored at the request of the original editor  Velella  Velella Talk 11:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC) *Delete per nom. Nothing more I can say. Doc Quintana (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Keep I'm fine with the rewrite. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Blatant advertising, and a likely hoax. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment \Keep While I was the original creator of the page, I was adding it on behalf of User:Dicky747. The text I 'wrote' was mainly from various failed AFC submissions, and a userspace draft. I requested that it be restored simply on the grounds that it didn't look like unambiguous advertising, but as I noted in my message to the deleting admin, it did have a primary source problem.  If I could fix the primary source problem and shorten to remove the apparent likeness to an advert, I would do so.  Then the only remaining issue would be the notability, which I guess will ultimately decided by the outcome of this AFD. Thanks,Acather96 (talk) 18:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - It may be worth noting that Dicky747 noted above as the instigating author has only edited this article and talk pages associated with to such an extent that there is a risk that one might consider whether there is COI here.  Velella  Velella Talk 19:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as advertising. Carrite (talk) 01:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment I will fix the article by 19:00 UTC Acather96 (talk) 16:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment esp for closing admin I initially deleted this article when it was called Fir-Tex as an A7. restored and userified to Dicky474's userspace. This draft was then restored to the mainspace, and then nominated for deletion Articles for deletion/Fir-Tex, where it was deleted, then restored for userfication, then deleted again by  in Feb this year. The last deleted version of Fir-Tex was longer than this version, and had more external links. I've added them here, but make no comment on their notability, as I don't have time to check atm, and can't remember what I thought last time. There's more info in my talk archives if you want to search for it.
 * Fir-Tex website
 * Firvest for athletes
 * Biological activities caused by far-infrared radiation
 * Test results by Dutch Handbal team
 * Test results by Dutch Olympic Committee (NOC-NSF)
 * Test results from Monique van der Vorst, Dutch athlete of the year
 * Dutch biggest newspaper about Fir-Tex
 * Turkish news and football national team player Arda about Fir-Tex
 * "El 'chaleco mágico' llega a MotoGP" in the most widely-circulated newspaper in Spain El País about the "magic vest"
 * Dutch news television SBS6 in prime time about Fir-Tex
 * Dutch Television news EditieNL about Fir-Tex
 * No idea if any of this is helpful, but it's worth bearing in mind. Ged  UK  09:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ I hope this rectifies the problems presented.Acather96 (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment/Questions
 * As I see remarks about no independent references, could someone then explain to me if the Dutch Olympic Committee and Dutch Handball Federation are no independent references? Basically you are saying that they are thus not independent, correct?
 * Other question: Do you really think that an organisation such as RedBull Racing, with more then 400 persons working for 2 cars, would go into an innovation partnership with FIR-TEX if they had not tested the product? This is not sponsorhip, which is a totally different story, no money is involved! I hope to get answers to this questions, thank you Flying Dutchman 22:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dicky747 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete per WP:NOTADVERTISING. Article would need to be rewritten from the ground up to maintain NPOV. Article also lacks "significant coverage" in reliable sources to establish notability per WP:N. Uncle Dick (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - It is advertising that would need a major re-write to fix, have big questions with regard to notability as well. Codf1977 (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Advertising-language in the article is not egregious to the extent requiring deletion. The links procured by User: Ged UK appear to establish the notability of the product.-- Pink  Bull  23:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete under G11- Unambiguous Advertising, Article would require fundamental rewrite to bring up to par.  Mr. R00t    Talk  00:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per the lack of reliable sources. I have reviewed the sources posted by Ged UK and the sources in the article and have been unable to find significant coverage in secondary reliable sources. Many of the sources provided fail to even mention "Fir Tex", while the rest are either press releases or passing mentions. An article being promotional is not a reason in itself for deletion, but when there are no third-party reliable sources that provide nontrivial coverage about the topic, the article should be deleted for failing Notability. Cunard (talk) 01:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I note that I have reviewed the sources located at Google News Archive and have found that they pertain to companies that share the same name as this one. Some of the sources are about this company, but all are press releases or unreliable. Cunard (talk) 01:35, 26 August 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.