Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tape Wrangler


 * 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   no consensus. -- Cirt (talk) 05:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Tape Wrangler
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This stub is an article about one minor brand of tape dispenser. It seems to be promotional and is not really a noteworthy subject. There is an article about the general subject of tape dispensers but I would not want every manufacturer to list their individual products in WK. Wikipedia should not be a product listing service. Pkgx (talk) 18:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think the sources in the article demonstrate that the topic meets the general notability guideline. As far as advertising, I'm not seeing that the article has a promotional tone.    A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 02:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, sources available are mostly press releases, nothing that looks like significant coverage to me. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Wifione    .......  Leave a message  05:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete The sources are just press release, which don't supply an notability. Wizard191 (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 *  Delete Comment This has been posted and reposted with only one editor (the author) supporting this article. Let's delete it.  Pkgx (talk) 15:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Query - are the sources from the Traverse City Record-Eagle and The Detroit News press releases? What about the product review from Hardware Retailing Magazine?    A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 18:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Have to agree with Arbitrarily0 on this one. The sources he mentions don't look like press releases. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The Traverse City article is good, but the Detroit News and Forth Worth Star articles both begin with "You can do anything with duct tape, except for getting it off the roll in a smooth, straight piece. Most of the time, the tape folds over and crinkles as you tear off a strip. A new product solves that problem. The Tape Wrangler is like a giant tape dispenser for duct tape. The tape roll fits on a spool and pulls off across a cutting blade that keeps the cuts neat and...", so it appears to be a reprint from somewhere. I don't have access to the full text, so perhaps they diverge as they continue, but they read like a press blurb floated to newspapers. The Hardware Retailers magazine is "the hardware and home improvement industry’s leading trade publication," and is sent free to members of the North American Hardware Retailers Association, basically a vehicle for advertisers to target hardware retailer with some fluff and feel good pieces, and I don't think these three really go to establish notability in the generals sense. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The Detroit News article has a interesting tone (such as starting with a pronoun) for attention-grabbing, but I don't this should necessarily disqualify it is a reliable source. It's my guess that the Forth Worth Star article, printed one week later, is a duplication of the Detroit News article.  While I don't know much about Hardware Retailing magazine, the title is "Duct tape dispenser.(SPRING PRODUCT PREVIEW)", making me think it's not a press release, but a product preview by some entity called "Spring".    A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 13:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming that you have access to the full article in Detroit News, yes? Does it have a byline, such as AP or Reuters? That would be the usual way a reprint between two regional papers would work. As for the 'spring product review' my assumption is that spring refers to the season, but again, I couldn't say without full access to the text of the article. I'm very leerly of using snippets to assess notability. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. As a biker I only need two tools - WD40 and duct tape. If it doesn't move and it should I use WD40. If it does move and it shouldn't I use duct tape. From what I can see of the topic it seems to be a fairly unique product - I don't know of any other duct tape dispensers and I work in theatres sometimes where we use miles of the stuff. That's OR/POV of course, so take it for what it's worth. Reading the listed sources it does seem to me to be a notable product and I would happily support it being kept on that basis. I do think the article would be better rewritten to feature the company rather than one of its range of products. --Biker Biker (talk) 17:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Mebbe across the pond duct tape is better, but here you'd use gaffer's tape and PB Blaster--WD40's a good cleaner but not much else. (' --Nuujinn (talk) 18:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Really, I don't see notability here. Sven Manguard  Talk  03:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Without evidence that the Detroit News coverage is a press release reprint, assuming it is would be original research. That gives two reliable and independent news sources covering the product, which makes it notable under WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Question, who's read the entire article in the Detroit News? --Nuujinn (talk) 14:42, 22 October 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.