Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IronMind
Advertising. --BM 00:04, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I did link several sources on their website, which can be removed if there is a consensus that such links are inappropriate. I did in, addition, put "Request a catalog" on the bottom (really because I love their catalog and many others have said the same), which can also be taken out if necessary. However, I am in no way affiliated with IronMind, other than being a happy customer, and they are certainly a notable organization - the long list of institutions that testify to using their products [1] should be sufficient affirmation of that. They really do fill a niche by offering unique and well-designed products to assist in strength training. Ground 00:09, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Further, the statement They are renowned by weightlifters for their innovation, product quality and customer service is factual and representative of a majority viewpoint; it is part of the reason the company is notable. Ground 00:44, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I've reworded the article to make it (IMO) less effusive, and removed the "Request a catalog" link. Ground 01:26, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- But you haven't removed the "renowned" sentence. How do you know this statement is true? What is the source for it? If it is based on your personal assessment of "weightlifter opinion", based on what other weightlifters have said to you, that is unverified and unverifiable original research and is not admissable. Statements made in the Wikipedia must be based on verifiable public sources, nor personal impressions. For example, if a recognized journalistic source about weightlifting has surveyed weightlifter opinion regarding the quality, innovativeness, reputation for customer support, etc, and that is the finding, then you can report the finding and state the source. Otherwise, it is indistinguishable from the P.R. puffery of the company, and is no better because you don't work for them. --BM 02:17, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I've eliminated the original research. Ground 15:57, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Further, the statement They are renowned by weightlifters for their innovation, product quality and customer service is factual and representative of a majority viewpoint; it is part of the reason the company is notable. Ground 00:44, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, well known business, peerless in the relm of handgrip sales. Sam Spade wishes you a merry Christmas! 00:17, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. But Wikipedia is not a product catalog, a shopping guide, or a place for testimonials about consumer products. --BM 00:31, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. In what way is that article a product catalog or shopping guide? I see no products. It's just an average company info page. Dan100 09:53, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep de-POVed version, but it would be nice to have some external references like a magazine article about the products or something discussing major companies in the field. Kappa 17:21, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. An article about a company is not necessarily advertising, or we'd have to delete Pepsi too. And if they publish a journal that makes them notable enough for me. Bryan 19:58, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep this article as the company's notability exceeds Wikipedia's standards, even if they do fluctuate. Triped 21:53, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep this well known business. Bryan Derksen says it best. —RaD Man (talk) 02:09, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Wikipedia is not a product catalog, a shopping guide, or a place for testimonials about consumer products. GRider\talk 18:12, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)