Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Techniques

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. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Air Techniques[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

this appears to be a run of the mill dental manufacturing company with no coverage in newspapers (even in archives), books or the like. Most of the hits for "air techniques" are not about the company but an actual technique unrelated to this manufacturer. Praxidicae (talk) 13:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Other equally prominent dental maufacturers such as KaVo Kerr, Dentsply Sirona, and Ivoclar Vivadent have Wikipedia articles that I find informative. Wikipedia doesn't seem to be a universally sought-out dental products marketing platform, inasmuch as other big dental companies like Hu-Friedy, Belmont, and GC-America don't even have articles here; it's not like this is obviously an attempt to sell dental products on Wikipedia. I also notice that this article has recently been edited, cutting out information that I know from personal experience was true and not utterly useless. Personally, I like the fact that I can find info on companies here on Wikipedia. If I need to learn a bit about FRAM, or OtterBox, or Fujitsu, I don't mind that they have ad-free articles here that anyone can edit. Nothing personal, but I would prefer it if the editor who cut this article down and nominated it for deletion had found better references and improved the article instead. Cellodont (talk) 16:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide sources to substantiate your keep vote? The fact that other stuff exists is irrelevant. I did a thorough WP:BEFORE including searching books and newspaper archives and there were 0 in depth sources about this company. Also, wikipedia is not a directory. Praxidicae (talk) 16:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the good point. My inclination is for the article to stay, but your point is correct. Please, for the sake of consistency, look at the other articles I mentioned. Their references are chiefly internal company documents. Cellodont (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not. If you think they are not sufficient, you should nominate them for deletion. Other articles existing have no impact on a deletion discussion, please revise your vote as per consensus and policy and find sources to support the inclusion of this article. Praxidicae (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated them for you. The what about-ism to justify a keep vote was extremely weak. While I doubt it will change now that those articles also have AfD's, at least it will hopefully lead to getting rid of a few more articles about none notable companies. As there are way to many of them and way to many excuses are made to justify their existence. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article has one source, and it's a dead link to a blog. The archive has been preserved though, as https://web.archive.org/web/20080405233826/http://thedigitaldentist.blogspot.com/2006/07/air-techniques-expands.html and it's pretty clear to me that its a press release. Unless we throw out all policies on verifiability and notability, there's no way this single deleted blog post/press release can sustain an article. Vexations (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vexations for the sake of transparency and fairness, I did remove a lot of sources and content prior to nominating it (see here.) However, those sources are insufficient, they're the companies website, a bloomberg business listing and another press release. Praxidicae (talk) 19:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae, these are all the sources ever used in the article:

http://eon.businesswire.com/news/eon/20100927005988/en/Air-Techniques/Polaris/Intraoral-Camera

http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=4303628

http://thedigitaldentist.blogspot.com/2006/07/air-techniques-expands.html

http://www.airtechniques.com/Dental/merchandise.cfm

http://www.dentaladvisor.com/clinical-evaluations/evaluations/spectra-caries-detection-aid.shtml

http://www.dentistryiq.com/index/display/article-display/6079442838/articles/dentisryiq/industry/2011/09/air-techniques_announces.html

http://www.newsday.com/business/inside-long-island-business-1.811933/dental-supplier-upgrades-website-1.2623374

https://www.airtechniques.com/our-history/ None of those are usable. Vexations (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly intended as a promotional article; original author was blocked; multiple updates by IP addresses associated with the company. Seems to be a real conflict of interest going on. Aside from that, notability has never been established and should have been deleted a long time ago. I find nothing except a few press releases and passing mentions in trade publications. Doesn't meet basic standard requiring in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources. Glendoremus (talk) 01:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not notable and created just to promote the company. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Searches show the company included in industry-wide surveys but I am not seeing the coverage required for WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 07:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I was also unable to find good sources that would pass GNG much less WP:CORPDEPTH. 67.243.20.177 (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.