Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ventrac 4500 KN


 * 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  21:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Ventrac 4500 KN

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I originally tagged this article as speedy delete, but I open this discussion since the author contested the deletion alleging that the page is not promotional. The article has no in depth coverage by independent reliable sources and does not meet our General notability guidelines I was not able to find any news coverage or any references from books. I tagged it as promotional since the article seemed like a product listing, describing the improvements over the previous model. It was created by a single purpose account that also added the complete catalog of accessories including copyrighted images that was copied from the corporate page. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment As an additional indication of a posible relationship between the author and the corporation that sells the product and the possible conflict of interest, the user claimed in this talk page File talk:EA600AERAVator.jpg: "I am the owner/registered user of this file. --Gymirgatey-MDM (talk) 19:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)" The file listed on the corporate page was deleted due to a copyvio.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Question What standard applies here? There are a couple of independent reviews, but there are of pretty much every tractor model on the market. . . are all tractors notable? Chris vLS (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as none of this suggests any solid independent notability and there's nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister   talk  05:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments and Questions
 * I have removed the image tab in the tables to simplify that part of the article. I have an email from someone at the company giving me permission to use the images but I have not clearly understood how to go about getting that presented to the proper person/place. I will work on getting that completed to verify that I have full permission to use all those images. However, I am not going to add them back anyway.
 * As to the lack of sources for the page I have done several hours of research searching for any references, articles, reviews, and news regarding this product. I have made an honest attempt to include them all. There aren't a lot of sources out there for this and the fact that it is a smaller market item may have a great deal to do with that. This is not John Deere or Kubota so I cannot find much beyond posts on discussion boards, which hardly count as reliable for Wikipedia, and what I have included was as objective as I could find.


 * As far as "notability" is concerned I do not know exactly what needs to happen with this. I have indicated that this tractor is and all-wheel drive, center articulation compact tractor which does give it some notability. How can I present that and not have it flagged as being an advertisement? It should be noted that I am currently working on the parent page which is the company that makes this product. I hesitated to work any more on it because I was afraid that I would put so much work into the page just to have it deleted. My understanding of an encyclopedia style article is that it presents factual information. I have done this. The facts are all verified in more than one source. Also, I understand that an article should be fairly exhaustive. I have tried to add as much relevant information as I could to the article which is why I have listed the attachments. It was not meant as a 'sales pitch" but as an educational tool for someone who might not what a compact tractor does, for example.


 * Finally, I have a section that lists the changes from the previous model and, although it does list improvements, it also makes mention of a drawback to the current model over the previous in that the newer diesel is under-powered compared to the older one.

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * I am willing to make any changes that need to be made and adjust as necessary in order to keep the page. I apologize if it appears to be in any way a violation of guidelines. I worked to ensure that it was within guidelines as I understood them to be. I never would have published the page if I had not felt that it was legitimate in every way. Please let me know what specifically I need to do to keep this page active and allow me to proceed with the other pages. Thank you. (Gymirgatey-MDM (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC))

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Searches did not turn up any in-depth coverage to show the notability of this subject.  Onel 5969  TT me 14:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Follow up
There has been no new discussion regarding this article and none of my comments/questions have been addressed. How am I to know if this discussion is considered closed or not? At what point can I remove the deletion tag from the article? I would like to proceed forward with this now. Thanks. Gymirgatey-MDM (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Hello, please state your relationship with the product or the manufacturer of this product since you claimed to be the owner/registered user of a picture of the tractor sourced from the company's site (see here) which was deleted due to copyvio.
 * The main problem of the article is that it lacks any in-depth coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject. If they can´t be found, then the article fails to meet our General notability guidelines and it therefore fails to meet our criteria for inclusion. The only two citations that are not sourced from the company's website are one routine comercial listing and a link to the USA EPA webpage where I could not find mention of the subject. Neither one is valid to help establish notability. If you want to create other articles I suggest you read Your first article. I think it may help you to choose topics that could meet our notability requirements. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2016 (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.