Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Task Force Tips


 * 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.  So Why  20:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Task Force Tips

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not very notable can find passing mentions: Bloomberg, bought the company mentioned in local paper and some articles: 1, 2 3, 4 None of these sources are in the article, do we think they are good sources, and do they demonstrate actual notability, as opposed to just something to write about for NWItimes? The article is no good, but that can be dealt with somewhere else. I did have to use some advancedsearching. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write)   )evidence(  16:22, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Nom Com I wasn't convinced when I started this that TFT was un-notable, and with all the sources/mentions that have been pulled up below, and the RSN discussion, I believe now that TFT is notable enough to stay in Wikipedia. It would be disruptive to Withdraw, so I am !voting keep. d.g. L3X1  (distænt write)   )evidence(  13:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC) edited  d.g. L3X1  (distænt write)   )evidence(  17:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , please bold any confirmed vote.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  d.g. L3X1  (distænt write)   )evidence(  16:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  d.g. L3X1  (distænt write)   )evidence(  16:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions.  d.g. L3X1  (distænt write)   )evidence(  16:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: See above comment.
 * Delete ...not notable Bosley John Bosley (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep there are a lot of search results that could be used to source a decent article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , please research and cite sources so that we can be sure they meet the criteria for establishing notability. The only ones I can see fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing ++ 12:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * For starters, this says what the company does--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:33, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * here is something about the history of their production process.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:33, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * here is something about their modern production process.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:33, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I could go on but this entity seems to pass WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:33, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks . For the purposes of finding sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability, this says what the company does but fails WP:ORGIND. This says something about the history of their production process but fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND (and not independent). Finally, here the Fotune article which says something about their modern production process] but fails WP:ORGIND. Note, finding sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability is different than finding sources to establish facts. -- HighKing ++ 22:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , Not a single one of those sources fails WP:ORGIND. Reread that section and you will see that these do not fall under the exceptions.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ORGIND addresses the "Independence of sources" and states: A primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it.. You say that "not a single one of those sources fails" and I think we'll just have to disagree with each other. For me its very clear. For example, the nwtimes article is an announcement from Madison Industries that they've acquired a controlling interest in the company - and goes on to use extensive quotes from Madison Industries. Clearly not independent. Similarly the machinedesign article uses a "case study" from a supplier of Task Force Tips. Again, not independent. Finally, the fortune article on the rise of robotic usage simply repeats quotes provided by the CEO where the company "talks about itself". -- HighKing ++ 16:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems that you fail to understand the difference between journalism and a press release. The nwtimes article is not an annoucnement from Madison Industries, it is what we would term journalism and is presumed to have been published through the desired editorial process. I have posted a clarification request at WP:RSN on this point. Let's see what the experts on RS say.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing ++ 12:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * delete fails gng. The links in the AfD but not in the article do not convince me.Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I am re-opening this discussion following a conversation on my talk page where an editor expressed concern that they might posses evidence that will establish notability. I am therefore restoring the article and relisting this discussion for another week. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment At WP:RSN, it is consensus (third party commentary by and ) that the sources I have presented are WP:RS, which debunks 's argument that they are not. This does not mean the subject is notable. WP:GNG requires a significant coverage from RS. Here we must judge what constitutes significant coverage. I could likely produce more RS, but my point is that there are RS and that the article should be kept because there are multiple RS. I don't know how close multiple RS is to significant coverage by RS, but what I have shown definitely gets you down that road toward significant coverage. In most AFD debates, this is sufficient although RSN commentary makes it clear that multiple RS is not automatically significant. I just clicked on the "find sources" search links above and found three quickly. I think we all are capable of clicking on the search links above and seeing several RS now that we should all understand what an RS is.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Response Please point out anywhere in my comments where we had a discussion about the reliability of the sources? I know you enjoy creating strawman arguments but it's rich when you don't even bother to read my responses. Maybe I'm being too harsh. Do you wear glasses to read (and keep forgetting to put them on)? Or perhaps English isn't your first language? Regardless, please pay attention to what is actually being said and it would also help if you actually read (with comprehension) what is being said.  -- HighKing ++ 12:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to add. You say that the sources you've presented are RS which debunks the argument I put forward (and no, it doesn't because I never put forward that argument or any argument based on the reliability of sources). Then you go on to state This does not mean the subject is notable. Odd. This is exactly the argument I put forward. Perhaps you missed that point during the discussion at the RS noticeboard. There, also clearly states they do not give significant coverage to confer notability which you have chosen not to highlight. Once again, this is the exact point I have made. Your position is illogical. On the one hand, you have not only clearly disagreed with me and stated complained I was POV pushing, yet on the other you have agreed with others that make the same point and you've now adopted that position yourself. I also note that you have failed to mention that the "consensus" at the RS noticeboard includes me.  -- HighKing ++ 16:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Some RS I've found...
 * - "The answer to this dilemma that proves that indeed, you can do more with less, is the attack monitor. The first was the Blitzfire was introduced by Task Force Tips, followed by Akron's Mercury, Elkhart's RAM, Crestar's Personal Monitor, and others."  Note that while this says 'blog' in the title, it's a sponsored/hosted blog at an RS.
 * - TFT chief marketing officer in a hosted (RS) roundtable regarding advances in firefighting foam.
 * - Looks like they authored/published a book on nozzle operations which appears to be normative and quoted in industry press, the original appears to be here.
 * - Products mentioned in the context of marine firefighting.  Bare mention, but it's an RS outside the fire service press.
 * - Another new product, but this looks like a press release. Here is a different RS coverage of the same product. Another industry press release covered in an RS.
 * - Company got sold recently
 * - They use manufacturing robots. more coverage of same topic.
 * - 2010 coverage of the CEO.
 * That's about 10 minutes of searching using only Google. Overall, that's some pretty decent RS coverage for a company that only employs 250 people.  GNG is clearly met. Jclemens (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Some scholar articles:
 * Spray Characteristics From Fire Hose Nozzles from snippet, compares at least one of their products by name to competitors' products.
 * Compressed Air Foam Fire Grounds Evolution Tests Another product evaluation, this time for foam systems.
 * Development of a Flow Modifier for Reducing the Reaction Force of Firefighting Nozzles U.S. Military firefighting research, which used a TFT product.
 * SOLID MODELING HELPS ENGINEERS DOUSE FIRES In Russian, I can't read it, but mentions TFT in the abstract. Jclemens (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * And some book references. There are a bunch of snippet views that look promising, but I can't see in detail what they say. What I can see is...
 * Invented the automatic adjustable nozzle. If you don't know how important this is to modern firefighting, please educate yourself.
 * Firefighting textbook uses their calculations for variable stream nozzle reaction force and flow.
 * US NFA glossary defines Task Force Tips as "a popular brand of adjustable fog stream combination nozzle, now a ubiquitous term for that type of nozzle. (emphasis mine) Jclemens (talk) 03:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for those sources. My comments are below.
 * This firehouse article is a blog post and this fails as a Reliable Source since blogs are considered self-published and not under any editorial control, etc.
 * This firechief article is an interview with experts including a Rod Carringer. The article only mentions Task Force Tips once, which is when it provides Rod's title as "Task Force Tips' chief marketing officer". For the purposes of establishing notability, this article is not independent and it fails WP:ORGIND.
 * I cannot view this article from fireengineering.com and it isn't available in archive either. If possible, could you provide some additional information?
 * This marinelog.com article fails WP:CORPDEPTH as a "passing mention" - the article merely mentions that there is a TFT remote operated monitor installed one of the many boats described
 * This firehouse article fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH as it relies on quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources and it a press release written by Task Force Tips
 * This Bloomberg article fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH as it relies on quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources.
 * This nwtimes article fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH as it relies on quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources and is essentially a published interview with the CEO and cannot be viewed as independent.
 * Looking at the scholarly references and the book references (which usually yield far better results for establishing notability)
 * This DRUM article is a 46 page thesis entitled "Spray Characteristics from Fire Hose Stream Nozzles" by Brian Edward Salyers. This fails WP:AUD as the audience is extremely limited.
 * This CalPoly article fails for the same reason
 * This DTIC article fails for the same reason and also fails WP:CORPDEPTH since there are only passing mentions of using a Task Force Tips nozzle (for comparison) to other nozzles and a prototype.
 * This Russian article fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND because - well it doesn't matter what reason I provide because you didn't/can't read it. Establishing notability isn't about "mentions => notable" and if you can't be arsed reading a reference, I don't see how you can credibly state that the source meets the criteria for establishing notability. Just FYI, here's the English language version.
 * This book "Fire Officer's Handbook of Tactics" fails WP:CORPDEPTH since it is only a passing mention in relation to describing Clyde McMillan.
 * This Book on "Structural Fire Fighting" fails for the same reason (passing mention)
 * This Book "Us National Fire Academy (Nfa) Handbook" fails WP:CORPDEPTH also as it includes "Taskforce Tip (TFT)" in a Glossary of Firefighting Equipment and nowhere else.
 * I have to say that I'm surprised TFT cannot meet the criteria for notability since it is clear that they are a well known and established brand within the (at least US) firefighting industry. I've trawled some more through the web and I have found:
 * This book entitled "The Idea-Driven Organization: Unlocking the Power in Bottom-Up Ideas" writes about how TFT acquired an expensive system through auction. I believe it meets the criteria for establishing notability as it is an independent and reliable secondary source.
 * If we can find one other source, I would (as always) be happy to change my !vote. -- HighKing ++ 17:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you remain unconvinced, but I fear that many of the best references are in online books without preview available online--check through the Google Books links above and see if you agree. Regarding the Firehouse Blog link, I addressed that already: That's an editorially-overseen column at an RS magazine--just because it says 'blog' in the URL doesn't mean it is an unreliable source. Jclemens (talk) 02:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It isn't whether I am convinced or unconvinced, it is whether the sources meet the criteria for establishing notability or not. I've provided my reasoning above and referenced appropriate guidelines. If you disagree (as you have with the 'blog' post) then it is up to you to point out any errors or miscomprehensions on my part. -- HighKing ++ 14:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm going to disagree with a large swath of your analysis, on the basis of this quote: "*This Bloomberg article fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH as it relies on quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources." In fact, the article is not substantially or predominately based on such quotations, as if it were a press release, which means you're setting the bar far too high and unreasonably beyond what the relevant notability guidelines say. Based on what you've said in this case, I reject all your reasoning based on ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. I want to reiterate that I completely agree that Wikipedia should not be an outlet for free organizational advertising, but neither do I think we should expunge non-promotional discussion of market-leading companies. Jclemens (talk) 17:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean that, as an example, if my analysis of The Bloomberg article is "typical", then you are using this example and how the guidelines are applied to disagree with all of the analysis. In my opinion, that position is both unreasonable and illogical. Nevertheless, lets look at The Bloomberg article in depth in relation to what it says about TFT. In general, the article discusses industrial robots. There is no mention of TFT until the fourth paragraph which consists entirely of a quote from Steward McMillan, the CEO. The next paragraph, the fifth, is also entirely attributed to McMillan. The sixth paragraph continues in the same vein - everything is attributed to McMillan. The article then continues and uses examples of industrial robots in other companies and from manufacturers. The final paragraph in the article ends with a namecheck of McMillian again and nothing more. There are no other mentions. I believe my analysis is reasonable. This article fails WP:CORPDEPTH's "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources" and fails WP:ORGIND's "any material written by the organization, its members, or sources closely associated with it". Everything written about TFT is directly attributed to a company officer. While I disagree that my interpretation is incorrect or that the bar is being set "far too high", I am interested in learning/adjusting to ensure that I remain open-minded and as fair as possible. I've already searched and found one additional source which I believe will pass the criteria for establishing notability and I've already stated that I'm surprised that another source hasn't/can't be found. Can you provide a more in-depth explanation as to why you believe the guidelines above should not or do not apply to the Bloomberg article? Thank you. -- HighKing ++ 22:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If you look at CORPDEPTH in context, that clause is in the context of other trivial things. Thus, a single quote might not pass CORPDEPTH, but multiple, substantive quotes do.  There are 12 separate bullet points, and I am interpreting quoted material in context of the other 11, which makes it clear that it's only referring to small, single quotes, not multiple paragraphs. Jclemens (talk) 23:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , the basis of all criteria for establishing notability is that an intellectually independent source provides significant and in-depth coverage. In my opinion, if the vast majority of an article merely repeats material written by the company or one of the company's officers, it fails the criteria for establishing notability. In contrast, should an article quote from company materials or a company officer but then goes on to explain or expand on what has been said, that may show intellectual independence and a level of in-depth coverage that meets the criteria. In the examples provided above it is fairly straightforward that the journalist is simply repeating and not providing any level of intellectual independence. I know you have personal knowledge of the industry and of the various organizations operating in the industry but I cannot find another source that (to my mind) meets the criteria for establishing independence. Again, if one turns up, I'm happy to change my !vote. Having spent the past three days reading all sorts of articles, I am starting to share your frustration that one more source cannot be found. -- HighKing ++ 16:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * For the record (i.e., Closing administrator review) I remain unconvinced by this interpretation which is exceptional among all the other criteria listed in WP:CORPDEPTH. Jclemens (talk) 19:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To encourage more discussion about the sources put forth....
 * Delete -- completely unremarkable; the coverage is either routine (product news, executive appointments) or passing mentions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I just reviewed WP:CORPDEPTH, and I've got at least a half dozen here that are more substantial than that threshold. I'd appreciate how you believe that applies to the sources in my above post (note: I know some of them are repeats), especially the last three which I added after your comment. Jclemens (talk) 03:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Please remember to be pithy when commenting. At some point an admin (it won't be me) is going to have to plow through this wall of text. Be concise. Cite policies or guidelines if possible. Avoid repeating points already made. Confine your comments to what is germane to the discussion and be brief. Above all, be brief! -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric  04:38, 30 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.