Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ops gear

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 speedy delete. speedied as recreation of deleted material slakr^\ talk / 20:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ops gear[edit]

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

Overly promotional Eeekster (talk) 22:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while I agree that the article is currently a virtual pamphlet for the company, that could be fixed. The deeper problem is that I cannot find indications of notability - the references are blogs and trivial mentions, now Google news hits, and going through the first few pages (because of the name of the company searching reveals many non-relevant hits) shows nothing to indicate that the company passes WP:CORPDEPTH; meaningful coverage by quality secondary sources. Seaphoto^Talk 00:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per nom.. article is obviously an advertisement Alan - talk 00:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A company article talking about its products. I wonder... CycloneGU (talk) 01:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination Johnclean184 (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete Page includes information on the company along with it's training areas, public services, it's services toward each of it's customer bases, and it's free training. No different then numerous other pages that speak about companies. (User:SAINT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.179.224.68 (talk) 02:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
None of this information shows why the company is notable. If you think other similar articles need to be deleted, please nominate them. CycloneGU (talk) 02:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also recommended to discount this opinion as User:SAINT has been suspected of being a sockpuppet since 2006 and this IP refers to him/herself as this user. CycloneGU (talk) 02:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. This is a re-creation of an article that was previously deleted after a full discussion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OPSGEAR. I thought that "infidel" shirt looked familiar. The reasons for that deletion discussion were "Questionable notability of this company; article contains no information to assess notability such as net or gross sales, number of employees, whether or not it is a private or public company, etc. Repeated attempts by multiple editors to de-spam this article (practically an advertorial) are repeatedly met with reversion." Obviously none of that has been changed in the new version. So tagging. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In light of this revelation, I am also suggesting a pinch of salt on anything that could be construed as the company name. CycloneGU (talk) 20:14, 27 April 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.