Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drop Stop

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 Kept. Since Bridgeplayer's rewrite it's clear the article just needed clean up, and the arguments presented about sources clearly meet the requirements of the general notability guideline. Several of the delete arguments fail to address policy or point to issues that could be mitigated by work on the article, rather than pointing to core notability or verifiability problems. Steven Walling • talk 06:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drop Stop[edit]

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

The product described in the article doesn't seem notable enough, it's more of an advertisment than an encyclopedic article. Plushy (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete almost speedy delete as G11, the article does sound too much like an advertisement. I didn't see any third-party sources that were notable on Google and Yahoo searches, their website even sounds like an advertisement "Amazing New Car Invention!" Ha. SwisterTwister talk 22:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WIkipedia has no issue with having articles about notable commercial products so long as the article isn't written like an advertisement. This article includes several major third-party sources which justify WP:N. Quoting from the talk page:

This stub article is completely referenced with several reliable secondary sources, including two television news outlets (KABC-TV and KCBS-TV), a notable newspaper (The Miami Herald), a publication from one of the largest American automobile insurers (American Automobile Association) and one of the most notable automobile magazines going (Car and Driver).

The notability threshold is met for this subject, having received significant coverage by reliable sources independent of the subject...

...And as far as the blatant advertising claim, are there any specific instances which aren't written in an objective and unbiased style? If so, please point those out here and let's discuss. Alternatively, feel free to go ahead and rewrite those instances.

This commercial plays ad nauseum and is very much part of pop culture. See the 1400+ comments on a single thread of Reddit. I suggest that where there is consensus that the article reads like a advertisement, that those sections be rewritten. Personally, I don't see any instances of that kind of writing in the current stable version of the article. 67.127.102.77 (talk) 23:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Reading through the article seems to be mainly advertising, does not specify how product is notable. My search on Yahoo resulted in links from the products website, and a few links from networking pages like facebook, myspace, etc. More self promotion, rather then general interest I'm affraid. 122.104.214.67 (talk) 01:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The essence of unencyclopedic triviality. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, First, why is the tone here so polarized? Is it really necessary to use words like "strong delete" for this rather trivial article? Second, other editors who claim that it should be deleted due to no third party sources are just not credible. How about: CBS Broadcasting Inc, The Miami Herald, ABC Inc., About.com., AAA Homeandawaymagazine.com, Car and Driver. (from the reference section). It is also relevant for WP to cover new products, technologies and startups. Keep. MaxPont (talk) 08:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I have rewritten the article from a NPOV viewpoint. The problem with the sources is that even reliable media uses advertorial material. However, my rewrite, I think addresses the promotional concerns and this just squeezes over the notability bar. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:44, 23 August 2011 (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.