Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buy Quiet

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 keep. (non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 ^talk 22:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Buy Quiet

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

This article is blatant advertising for a safety campaign. The entire article is written as a PSA, and it even includes two TV commercials. The problem is that there are no independent sources that have covered Buy Quiet. I was able to find one significant article, Suter (1989) that I added to Further Reading, but that is actually about ways the Reagan Administration cut back on safety programs in the 1980s, and it only mentions Buy Quiet in one sentence.

There's a lot one could write on noise control, particularly the conflict between Chamber of Commerce/Association of Manufacturers/Heritage Foundation support for (cheap) hearing conservation programs rather than more costly efforts to engineer the noise out of machinery supported by NIOSH and others. There's a lot of sources out there that and articles could be written or expanded on these topics. See Nash, James L. "What's Wrong With Hearing Conservation?" Occupational Hazards Jan. 2000: 41. for example.

The Buy Quiet subject fails the WP:GNG because it lacks sources Independent of the subject, which "excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent." Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.google.com/webhp?ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#tbm=nws&q=%22buy+quiet%22+%2B+NIOSH Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 18:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And? Which of these google hits is an example of significant independent coverage? The first hit is the CDC website. Your second hit is not about Buy Quiet at all. It's mentioned in one sentence, at the very end of the article. This is an announcement of an announcement: NIOSH sent Safety & Health a press release, and they passed it on to their readers. Oh, and the topic isn't even Buy Quiet, it's about the Safe-in-Sound award winners. The fourth, fifth, and sixth hit don't even mention Buy Quiet at all, not even in passing. Google is not magic; you have to read this stuff with your own eyes. It's pretty much turtles all the way down after that. Article after article that is not about Buy Quiet. It hasn't been the subject of any significant coverage in independent sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We're not getting the same hits. Hit 2 is [1]. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 19:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares? Can you please cite one example of significant coverage of Buy Quiet in an independent source? You just posted a link to an article that has some interesting things to say about noise control, and almost nothing about Buy Quiet, which gets a tiny shout out at the very end of the article. If we could look at even one example, then we could talk about whether one is enough to keep this article. Dare we ask for two? The notability guidelines do say that "multiple sources are generally expected". You could save us all some time if you would either cite them or admit they don't exist. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to note that Buy Quiet has been written about by organizations other than NIOSH, as catalogued on the partners page. James Hare (NIOSH) (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Buy Quiet partners are participants in the Buy Quiet program. To establish notability we need coverage in independent sources, not organizations tied to the article subject. If we had one independent source with significant coverage, that would still be debatable. But we don't even have to that. Only passing mentions, or self-published works but the subject or the subject's associates. Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh [2] [3] [4], [5]. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is yet another article that is not about Buy Quiet. It mentions Buy Quiet at the end. We've already seen several articles like this. The notablitiy standards require substantial coverage, not mere passing mention. This is WP:ROUTINE, and it's quick gloss of a press release. This, again, is not about Buy Quiet. It's yet another article about noise control and hearing loss. Buy Quiet is not the subject. The last one, [6], is more of the same. A very brief article, not in-depth coverage, and the main topic is not Buy Quiet.
I will be happy to withdraw this nomination and request a speedy keep if anybody can cite significant coverage in independent sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it: [7] [8]! This is extremely WP:POINTY Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 23:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Acoustics Australia article is actually about Buy Quiet, which is significantly different than anything cited up to now. It might very well be the first evidence of notability anyone has cited. Pointing out why all the previous citations failed to qualify as evidence of notability is not disruptive. Anyone will tell you the citations you offered up to now were not cutting it. Now you've cited one that is at least in the ballpark. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final Relist Dane2007 (talk) 04:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dane2007 (talk) 04:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How can this just not be closed!? It obviously has sources, of which at least 5 are in the article. Why did you relist Dane2007, Anarchyte — there is far more information here than needed to close it per WP:SNOW. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 11:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
@CFCF: I relisted because there were only 3 participants. I disagree with the third relisting, though. If it had been open for 3 weeks and your references weren't properly rebutted, I see no reason why this is still open. I don't think I can't close it because I was the relister and participated in the process, so I'll vote keep instead. -- Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:13, 13 August 2016 (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.