User talk:Repotox

Speedy deletion of Opper fiber

A tag has been placed on Opper fiber, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as the Wikipedia:Business' FAQ for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. gnfnrf (talk) 21:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Although I deleted this article, I note that you wrote on its talk page about why it should be kept. I wanted to let you know specifically why it was nominated for deletion, and why I deleted it.

The nomination was under blatant advertising. This indicates a page that exists solely for the purpose of promoting a product. Since "Opper Fiber" seems to be a trademarked product name, this was a reasonable conclusion to draw.

You made some comments, however, about how certain other pages shouldn't exist in the encyclopedia if this one could not. The main reason that point does not hold much weight is that two of the main criteria for inclusion are verifiability and notability. This article was written as an advertisement for a product, not as an encyclopedic discussion of a class of products. To draw a parallel, we have an article for facial tissue in the encyclopedia, which is about a class of product. Then, because this particular brand is notable, we also have a separate article for Kleenex. There is already an article for microfiber, but "Opper Fiber" is apparently not notable enough for its own article, because it does not appear as the subject any hits in a search on Google web, and it has zero hits in Google news archive, Google Books, and Google Scholar. Now - please understand that Google hits do not make-or-break notability by themselves. This article did not assert notability of the product to start with, which is sufficient to delete it. However, I checked for evidence of notability so that we could avoid a delete-recreate-delete-recreate sort of discussion. In the searches that I did (listed above), I couldn't find independent evidence of notability.

There may well be dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of articles in this project that "should" be deleted. However, they need to be dealt with on their own. This one simply didn't assert notability, and attempts to find evidence of it were not successful. If you can find evidence that this product is the subject of reliable coverage in independent sources, we can work with it and see if that's sufficient to merit an article. It may well be that it would only merit a mention in the microfiber article. Please note: I'm not saying the product doesn't exist; I'm saying that it isn't notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia, and it was deleted because it was written as an advertisement for a commercial product, which is not allowed.

Please let me know if you have any questions. This is a big place with lots of people, policies, and procedures, and it can be overwhelming. There are many people who are willing to help, though.  Frank  |  talk  03:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)