Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texas Precious Metals

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 no consensus. Daniel (talk) 09:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Precious Metals

Texas Precious Metals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completing a GF AfD nomination on behalf of a new editor, ChiefSweetums. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This article was written before the restrictions changed. The article contains BBB references and press releases that are no longer acceptable. It's confusing to writers trying to write new articles, because when they try to follow the format, similar references are rejected for not being notable. This article isn't noteworthy and doesn't have credible, third party references. ChiefSweetums (talk) 13:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"before the restrictions changed" Which restrictions?
There is no "restriction" on using BBB or press releases as references, or any non-RS in general. They may not be adequate on their own, but that's a separate issue. Nor, in this case, are they on their own.
If there's a claim in this article that you see as unsupported by the necessary level of RS, then by all means query that claim and tag it as such, but that's no reason to seek deletion of the entire article. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Andy Dingley, ChiefSweetums came into IRC asking about their draft, and used TPM as an example of a similar article. We mentioned that the TPM page was created before AfC existed. Primefac (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac - huh? AfC has been around for 10 years, and the article was created less than 2 years ago? - Happysailor (Talk) 09:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Happysailor, in looking over my logs, the start of AfC was never explicitly mentioned, just a general statement that the criteria have changed over the years. Primefac (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac - np, your statement above - 'We mentioned that the TPM page was created before AfC existed - threw me a loop, that's all. - Happysailor (Talk) 16:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A business over a hundred years old, claimed as one of the largest US companies in its notable field. I see no reason to question the veracity of this, no part of the article seems overblown, and the basic topic is notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm concerned about the neutrality of this AfD nomination, given that the nominator's main efforts so far have been on a competitor's article at Draft:Capital Gold Group, Inc., so far rejected for creation. Other uninvolved editors might wish to consider a speedy close of this. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Age does not confer notability, and large organizations are not inherently notable. What is at issue is not the nominator's motives, but whether Texas Precious Metals has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the company. Worldbruce (talk) 03:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Wow! How did I never notice all those rules before?!?!
Also, see the 19 references that are already on this article and have been there for some time. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Out of those 19, some are just fact checking (like the patent office), and some are self-published or Press releasses. I think it might be just about notable after going through the refs, but there was some hyperbole and padding in the refs (it was 29 until I went through them) - Happysailor (Talk) 09:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Padding" doesn't dilute notability though. If there's a handful in there that convey notability, then notability is conveyed. The rest is copy-editing. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination for deletion was proposed from a disgruntled industry competitor who was trying to get their non-notable company Draft:Capital Gold Group, Inc. a Wikipedia page, got rejected because they weren't notable and then lashed out at Texas Precious Metals in frustration. Shinerite (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Shinerite, unless you know that for a fact, then you should probably assume good faith and assume that they're just trying to follow Wikipedia policy. Do they have a COI? Sure. Was it malicious? Maybe. But that shouldn't affect the discussion, especially since it's been largely neutral so far. Primefac (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, we'll keep it neutral. The nominator with COI has since deleted his short-lived account and stayed out of this discussion.Shinerite (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If we removed all the primary sources, as we should, there would be no article left. No objection to someone re-starting it with secondary sources, but out of the current article there is not enough material worth keeping to overcome TNT. CorporateM (Talk) 02:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep CorporateM, I respectfully disagree: There are secondary sources from USA Today, Inc 500, Marketwatch and Zerohedge. Marketwatch and Zerohedge are two of the largest news names in the investment world. There is another reference where Texas Precious Metals was the printed cover story for Shale magazine, the leading energy industry publication in the nation. Thanks to HappySailor's recent review and edits, there was a cleansing of sources (from 29 to 18 and then a few more were added/tweaked) and what is left looks pretty solid. There is substantial coverage from multiple, reliable, independent national (not even regional or local which are also acceptable) secondary sources. That clearly exceeds the definition of notable for companies outlined by WP:COMPANY.Shinerite (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 07:04, 16 August 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Texas_Precious_Metals&oldid=1137469945"