Talk:UTEX Industries

Note

Someone more familiar with this industry might want to comb through this and make sure that I haven't rendered anything as nonsense by accident. I found "Utex" as a brand-new article, and it was just an unwikified paragraph of puffery which I later found had been a copyvio in the first place. I rewrote, expanded, contextualized, and sourced it, but I don't know a thing about sealing or molding, so I may have messed a couple of things up in the process. Mr. IP (talk) 00:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.utexind.com/about/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. /wiae /tlk 17:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Edits from UTEX or their staff

Can User:Cydney456 please suggest edits here from now? It's become very obvious they are affiliated with the company and are pushing a POV by their edits. I've given a warning and will escalate if needed. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 08:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Article tags

Hi, i've removed three of the tags you placed on this article because they didn't seem accurate. The article has issues, yes, but three of these tags didn't appear to have any basis. Citations? Practically everything is cited. Notability? The article passed a speedy delete recently for this criteria. And recentism? I don't even know where that one came from if you read the article. Don't take this as an attack as it certainly isn't meant as one. I just don't understand how you managed to get the impression that three of those tags were relevant. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 08:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jenova20, I disagree for the following reasons:

• Yes the article "survived" an AfD, but this was because the nominator withdraw the AfD (and it had only been there for 3 days and many regular and experienced AfDers had not had a chance to comment). The non-admin closure stating it was a "keep" is incorrect. The tag stating that The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations was added because from an examination of the sources within the article, all of them without exception fail to meet the criteria to establish notability, specifically they fail WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Rather than throwing it back into an AfD right away, I tagged the article to allow interested editors the opportunity to find proper sources.
• The tag stating This article needs additional citations for verification. was added because the article has a total of 6 references. 4 of these reference are from the company website and the remaining two are Press Releases. There are no independent sources in this article and this is a requirement for any statements of fact or claims in *any* article.
• The tag stating This article or section appears to be slanted towards recent events. is perhaps a clumsy tag. The article states that the company was founded in 1940, yet all of the facts and claims in the article that are cited are recent. I'm happy to leave this tag off the article for now.

I believe the first two tags should be reinstated. Let me know your thoughts. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll agree on the second tag for citations as I hadn't checked the sources of the originals, however, i still disagree with the AFD tag as the article topic is nearly 100 years old and clearly notable. News info may be difficult to find from that far back as the internet wasn't around, but a quick read through the article shows clear rationale for a keep. Regarding the third tag, the likelihood of the recent info dominating is likely down to the recent sources again. If older sources from print media, etc, can be found then i'm sure this can be changed. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 08:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Besides, the AFD was clearly a case of SNOW, and before it was withdrawn there was only 1 person supporting delete (the original nominator). Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 10:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jenova20, thanks for the response. I've no problems agreeing to disagree but unless some sources can be found that meet the criteria for establishing notability, this article will be nominated again for AfD in the near future (possibly even by me if someone else doesn't get there before me. I'll give it two or three weeks). Now that you've checked the references (and it is odd that you !voted for Keep without checking them in the first place??) you can see that at least two sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability should be found (see WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND to assist in identifying problematic sources). Tagging the article (especially the "notability" tag) is the accepted way to let interested editors know that sources must be found. I've no problems with not putting the tags back into the article - yes, they can seem ugly but I'm not sure how other interested editors might then know that the article has some problems. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Just to add, perhaps this discussion should be moved to the article Talk page - at least editors would be aware that these issues were discussed. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

My opinion is that if you firmly believe that then please nominate it for AFD and we'll get some wider opinion from the community. The article was a clear SNOW keep last time before it was withdrawn and it's been improved since so the objections thrown up last time about advert-like wording will (if anything) give an even stronger Keep result. I'm semi-retired so i stick to simple small edits these days but i'll help out where/when i can. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 14:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The purpose of tagging the way I did (which you removed) was so that interested editors had time to find sources that meet the criteria for notability. Your reliance on the previous AfD is misplaced as it did not reach a proper conclusion as it was withdrawn by the nominator. Your reliance on WP:SNOW is also misplaced as the closing admin does not count !votes but weighs up the debate based on policy and guidelines. Right now, I cannot find any sources that meet the criteria for notability, nor have you put forward any additional sources. I suppose if you aren't happy with the tag and you have indicated you're happy to test notability back at AfD again, fine. Thank you, I'll do it straight away. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

There was some decent sources presented at the AFD last time but no one added them to the article. Yeah, i'll support another AFD if that's what you want. Just don't withdraw it so it can be used as a constant threat (Not an accusation, just saying). Let it run it's course. I'm pointing out SNOW by the way, not relying on it for any kind of argument. Last time not a single editor supported deletion and some good sources were presented. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jenova20, no problem, I'll let it run. That latest source from rubbernews.com you added (in my opinion) fails WP:ORGIND because the entire article relies on company officer quotation for the data and information and is simply quoting company sources. It is an advertorial. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

That said, I think this book on "High Pressure Pumps" is a good reference that meets the criteria. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. It's a news site discussing their expansion plans from what I can see. Still, i'll look for better stuff next time. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 13:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)