Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tear gas manufacturers


 * 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.  Sandstein  20:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

List of tear gas manufacturers

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A fine example of points 1 and 5 of WP:DOAL, and then some. I can't envision a need for this list as a freestanding article, the list obviously isn't complete, it appears to be a magnet for non-notable companies to add themselves via inline external links (without references and without filling in requested information), and the notion of "notable uses" of a company's tear gas is bizarre and appears inherently unconfirmable. (Caveat: I haven't nominated a list for deletion before and if I did this wrong, I kindly implore someone to tell me where there are better instructions and/or guidelines; I looked, and gave up after a fruitless half-hour and plowed boldly ahead.)  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  20:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Only 1/5 of the companies has a WP article (and even that 1 - just barely). Probably far from complete. Tear gas is not a particularly notable implement of war or a particularly notable or difficult chemical. WP:NOTCATALOG.Icewhiz (talk) 21:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-complete, subjective list. Kierzek (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep What does this have to do with point 1 of WP:DOAL. As for point 5 - there are plenty of notable companies that produce tear gas, in fact most of the companies that produce tear gas seem to be notable. There is more then enough in published books (mostly books) to preclude deletion through AfD. There is TransTechnology, which has been covered in many books; Condor, who has been the subject of numerous articles in mainstream publications, including WSJ; Combined Systems, Inc - one of the companies mentioned in the article - has been discussed in published books; Federal Laboratories .... None of the reasons given above have even a remote connection to our policies on deletion. "Tear gas is not a difficult chemical?" "Non-complete subjective list?" What could possibly be subjective about whether a company produces tear gas - they either do, or they don't. I don't see a single policy reason that would justify deleting this article. Seraphim System ( talk ) 04:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Not difficult = tear gas could be produced by just about any chemical concern. It could be carried by just about any police/non-lethal weapon manufacturer (who might manufacture either entirely or by repackaging the chemical into tactical rounds). It is a trivial compound. Would we carry an article with a list of companies that produce blue paint? At some point, this becomes trivial. The current article state is rather poor - in terms of only company deemed to be notable enough for a wiki article, in terms of list completeness, and in terms of "Notable uses" (since when is this the subject of a list? Should we place such a list next to ammo manufacturers and track each time live ammunition (and of which type) was fired at a group of rioters?).Icewhiz (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- WP:PROMO in the current form, with ext links in body. This is much better handled via a category. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed the links. Again, to both comments above, "in the current form" or not liking the content are not valid grounds for deletion. Neither is making up unsourced OR about who could theoretically produce tear gas or how easy it is to produce. All the companies I have found that produce and sell tear gas are notable, in particular because there have been protests and pressure on the companies for selling the tear gas to Israel. Unlike blue paint, tear gas is listed and regulated as toxicological agents under federal law, amongst various other US laws that are significantly more restrictive then Federal regulations for paint maufacturers. Whether any single company should be included is a content dispute that needs to be resolved by discussion. There are enough notable companies to justify a list, there have been federal lawsuits, and there are published books. I would rather improve the article, expand the lede to discuss notability and source to secondary sources instead of external links. But if it's deleted without any policy justification there is nothing barring recreation with more sourcing to establish notability―our guidelines allow this WP:AFTERDELETE, but the AfD process is supposed to be based on whether the subject is notable in the sources available, not only the sources provided. It is notable, mostly in sources discussing protests against the manufacturers, lawsuits, government inquirys and media attention that is mostly focused on U.S. companies that export tear gas to countries accused of human rights violations and who have been accused of using the tear gas inappropriately, in a way that has been harmful for civilians. If the subject is notable, which it is, based on WP:RS and not the personal off the cuff opinions of our editors, it should not be deleted. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 22:14, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Tear-gas is very easy to manufacture - look it up. This is very much old tech, and its use is pervasive. This quite the same as blue-paint, as most of these manufacturers don't define themselves as "tear gas manufacturers" but rather as "non-lethal weapon manufacturers" - with much wider lines of products than just tear gas. WP:NOTCATALOG - we should not maintain lists of niche product produced by a random set of changing manufacturers. It is one thing to maintain List of automobile manufacturers - where this is the major business of the companies. It is another to start listing each individual sub-product - blue paint, white paint, orange paint, etc.  (Or rubber bullet, tear gas, acoustic crowd dispersal, water cannons, bean bags, etc.) - based on some non-described criteria (did the company ever do produce this? Is it currently?). I'll note that the wider parent lists (e.g. - "list of non-lethal weapon manufacturers" or "list of riot control equipment manufacturers") seem to be non-existent as well.Icewhiz (talk) 22:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Pure WP:OR these companies have received significant attention in WP:RS specifically for their manufacture of tear gas, unlike paint companies, who as far as I know have never been singled out for blue paint over red paint. The fact that you think it is easy to manufacture, or that's it's use is pervasive, or that the companies describe themselves one way are all things that have no bearing on an AfD discussion. You are supposed to at least check google before voting delete during AfD. Non policy based, non source based comments are both inappropriate under WP:FORUM  and they do not count towards consensus.  Seraphim System  ( talk ) 22:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I still don't see a point of this list. There's one blue linked article. The connections between these companies and various protests is trivial and incidental. For example, the fact that the gas used in Turkey protests was manufactured by Condor Non-Lethal Technologies SA is immaterial. The Turkey authorities could have used any other company as a supplier. What encyclopedic purpose do these connections serve? K.e.coffman (talk) 05:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * K.e.coffman - I believe there has been (not sourced in the article, which I'll note is basically close to un-sourced - the article has a broken activist website ("Tracking tear gas"), a PR stmt from Carlyle (broken link), and two sources with a date but without a title (Fox News Latino & Raw Story) - which makes finding them not so easy) some activist efforts to organize various boycotts (or other sanctions/measures such as attempting to sue the producer for alleged improper use by consumers) on tear-gas producing companies. I'm not sure of the degree of coverage this has received in RS (this is hard to discern easily, as most "tear gas" references simply go to mundane usage reports in riots, and most lawsuits are primarily directed against the consumers (e.g. - suing the respective police forces, suits against producers are probably attempted when the respective consumer is a foreign entity that can't easily be sued). However - I also believe the same is true of other riot control gear (e.g. rubber bullets or water cannons). If this is indeed the justification for a list (activists calling for a boycott/other measures/lawsuits/protests against the company) - then this would have to be covered by RS in a significant fashion, and I think this should probably be merged (or name-changed) to contain other riot-control gear producers/distributors who have faced calls for boycott (or other measures - e.g. lawsuits), and the inclusion criteria should be such coverage in RS. The current article's contents (contents of the list - which isn't close to representing major tear gas manufacturers), sourcing (essentially non-existent), and assertion of significance is very lacking.Icewhiz (talk) 06:22, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: article has little meaningful content, most of the entries are redlinks, possible case of WP:YELLOWPAGES.  Dr Strauss   talk  06:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment AfD is not cleanup. I'm not sure of the degree of coverage this has received in RS is a pretty bad reason to vote delete, you are supposed to check and base this decision on sources. ALso how is it a possible case of WP:YELLOWPAGES—I don't see any contact info in the article and the companies are notable. This seems to be editors who are ignoring the rules of AfD to delete an article because they don't like the content and not for policy reasons. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 14:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Only one is blue-linked - so only one passed WP's standards of notability. Regarding your quote of me of "I'm not sure" - that was in relation to riot control companies that have faced legal/activist action - but that is not what this list is asserting - it is purporting to be a list of tear gas manufacturers - but rather what I think might be a significant list in this general area - but this isn't the current article title or contents.Icewhiz (talk) 14:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

So far the editors have supported deletion for the following reasons:
 * Unsourced WP:OR/POV that the connection between companies and the use of tear gas at protests is "trivial and incidental" and "immaterial"
 * The articles sources need to be improved
 * I'm not sure how much coverage it has received in WP:RS, so we should delete it because the current contents don't establish notability.
 * "Assertion of significance is very lacking"
 * Article has "little meaningful content"
 * WP:YELLOWPAGES
 * The entries are redlinks. Unless a company is blue-linked it does not pass notability standards (this is not true).
 * Tear gas is very easy to manufacture
 * Tear gas is like blue paint
 * These companies are a "random set of changing manufacturers" (I won't list them all but basically unsourced content-based assertions that are not based on our notability guidelines)
 * WP:PROMO because of external links in the body, which I have sinced removed.
 * "No encyclopedic value"
 * "non-complete, subjective list"

Did I miss any? IMHO, editors who say things like "only blue-linked companies pass notability standards" should probably not even be allowed to participate in AfD discussions until they have a better understanding of our notability guidelines. Seraphim System ( talk ) 14:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * How about providing WP:RS to back up claims to notability? The current article is un-sourced. There is one activist website (broken - and probably not RS). a PR release from Carlyle (broken, and not RS). And two items - "Raw Story, 28 January 2011," (doubtful as a RS - ) and "Fox News Latino, 12 June 2013" without a title or author. Lists are often constructed of notable items - which are those that have a WP article - that's not to say a red-linked item couldn't be notable - it could be - it just isn't established to be so at the moment. You most definitely have to provide a WP:RS for any red-linked item in a list. Some of the items - e.g. for  Narendra Explosives it doesn't seem there is an on-line RS establishing this (6 GHITs, 1 WP, manufacturer site, trademarking.in, and ofbindia.gov (which possibly would be a primary source)). Icewhiz (talk) 14:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * When I was working through the backlog at AfC I have seen articles that bluelink to articles that fail notability (imo), when I have found them I have put the bluelinked articles up for AfD. You can't just assume that a subject is notable because the article exists. It does happen that some non-notable articles get by us, or the AfD's close as no consensus—sometimes they are deleted in subsequent AfD rounds, but sometimes the result is just "no consensus" for lack of participation. So there is no policy that says the existence of a bluelink counts towards establishing notability, it does not. As far as I know our policies do not say we should assume notability has been established for subjects that have a blue link.
 * I am working on too many different articles right now, including trying to bring one up for GA, but if this article is deleted this round, I will create it with a proper lead and more thorough sourcing at a later time, and remove the "notable uses" column  Seraphim System  ( talk ) 15:33, 28 June 2017 (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.