Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lake Mower

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 delete. Cirt (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Lake Mower

Lake Mower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Promotion of a non-notable commercial product Epipelagic (talk) 07:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Weak keep. I think this reference from the State of Washington's Department of Ecology suggests a bit of notability for this product. It's interesting technology, anyway. The original version of the article had lots of trademark symbols, but I removed them all, per WP:MOS. - Eastmain (talk) 10:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete G11 advertising for the "Jenson Lake Mower", a product that one can use to skim the surface of a lake to clean it up of plants that are growing above the water. The text indicates that there are other machines that do "mechanical aquatic weed control" (but this one is "the most cost-effective"). Plus it "easily fits" on your boat and can be powered by any 12-volt battery, and it's been "praised" for its "ease of use and durability" and "applauded" for being "environmentally friendly", etc. etc. Mandsford (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Obviously just an advertisement. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep This article is written like an advertisement but the machine as such is notable enough to be kept. I think we should rewrite this article from a neutral point of view. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

How about rewriting it into a general article about machines that take care of "mechanical aquatic weed control"? Mandsford (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. The fact that an article has a company or commercial product as its subject does not make the article into an advertisement. Consider Cadillac Eldorado, for example. - Eastmain (talk) 01:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. I wrote the article and where I put the aforementioned '"the most cost-effective""easily fits" on your boat and can be powered by any 12-volt battery, and it's been "praised" for its "ease of use and durability" and "applauded" for being "environmentally friendly"' I was merely using the information from the references I found but I can rewrite so that it doesn't sound so 'one sided.' For example, we could add a 'criticism' however most of the reviews which I have run across have turned up to be generally positive. The "environmentally friendly" part though has to be understood in the context of choosing to use a Lake Mower rather than chemicals (which some can have side effects on the plants and wildlife.) I'll work on it some to make it more NPOV. Invmog (talk) 03:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment P.S.- Someone said earlier that "it skims the top of the water" but my research shows that people use this stuff to cut the weeds under the water so that they can swim or drive their boats around in the cleaned area, sort of like a lawn mower but for lake weeds as one of the sources put it. Invmog (talk) 03:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Another Comment Say, I just removed/reworded more NPOV most or all of the contested parts so if there are any further deliberations for deletion then please make them known by stating them clearly and concisely and I'll do my best to accommodate them. Invmog (talk) 04:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yet Another Comment OK; I added about four more references which points to the article's notability and the article has been been rewritten to a great degree. Invmog (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. At this point, I would still lean towards delete. To be more specific than I was before: (1) The lead refers only to one brand, by the brand name, and is sourced to the company's website. (2) There are only two sources that satisfy WP:RS: the inline cite to a municipal report (#6), and the inline cite to the Washington State Dept. of Ecology (#10), and neither really establishes notability. Cites #1, 2, 3, 5, and 14 go to the company's website and are promotional. Cites #4, 7, 8, 9, 11, 15, and 16 are essentially paid advertisements. Cites #12 and 13 are dead links. (3) The external link is also the company's website. (4) Even after the new edits, the page still contains "Many long-time customers have given the Lake Mower generally positive reviews" and "one of the most cost-effective mechanical aquatic weed control methods available." Maybe it would be best to userify until the page can be made encyclopedic. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Alright then; I removed the two sentences which you quoted and I also removed 'Jenson' from the 'Jenson Lake Mower'. Although I wouldn't completely agree that "#4, 7, 8, 9, 11, 15, and 16 are essentially paid advertisements" I'll see if I can find some more reliable references. Thank you for assessing the article and for letting me know what I can do to improve upon it. Invmog (talk) 22:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, and I hope it helps. Maybe I shouldn't have said "paid", since I don't know that, but the point stands, paid or unpaid. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I would favour keeping the article if there is an undertaking to redevelop it as a general article called something like "aquatic weed control machine", which is not confined to just one commercial product. (There is, in any case, a problem with the current title "Lake Mower" - Initially I thought that was the name of a lake). There is also a useful companion article waiting to be written on the "seaweed harvesting machine". --Epipelagic (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Thanks also, Tryptofish, for being so WP:CIVIL; it's pretty refreshing to find in deletion discussions and so I removed some of the links going to companies who sell lake mowers but I didn't get them all yet but I'm all for having them removed. Also, I was wondering if we should completely remove the 'Accessories' section to make it sound less like an advertisement (the only reason that I included it in the first place was because I modeled the whole page after the String trimmer page which is why the sections are called History, Operation, Environmental impact, and Accessories.) Epipelagic, I know naming it just 'Lake Mower' could be very confusing which is why I wanted to name it 'Jenson Lake Mower' but I think if we could secure a free picture it'll a lot less confusing either way. Oh, and Tryptofish, you said "The lead refers only to one brand, by the brand name" which was very true, but as far as I can tell no other company makes the stuff and I think they have it patented but I'm not sure, but regardless I removed the 'Jenson' part.Invmog (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Please also don't overlook Epipelagic's very correct observation that "Lake Mower", as opposed to "Lake mower" (note the capitalization difference), sounds like the proper name of a lake. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy delete: From the above post, it is clear that Invmog has no interest whatever in the suggestions above, is not prepared to expand the article into a general article, but is determinedly focused on promoting one particular product. There is no lack of equally worthy and equally interesting alternate products: WeedShear, WeedRoller, BeachBuddy, Aquatic Vegetation Groomer, Truxor amphibious weed cutter, SonicSolutions, Aqua Blaster, Lake Roto-Tiller, Big Tooth Lake Weed Rake, Aquamog, AquaTractor... the list goes on.

It would be absurd to create individual articles for each of these. An interesting and neutral general article on the mechanical control of aquatic weeds could easily be written, but Invmog is not prepared to even consider this. He is not interested in lake weed control machines in general, he is only interested in this one product. This has clear hallmarks that an undeclared COI and blinkered agenda is operating here, and the article as it stands should be speedy deleted. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment About the name; maybe we could even do 'Lake Mower (machine)' but anyway I found a really good, solid, independent, reliable, notable source. No, really, I did; took me about an hour and a half. Anyway, It was a report done for the city of Richland, Washington. It's really, really long (I think 84 pages, and the page numbers aren't marked...) so I found the part where it talks about the lake mower and it lists advantages and disadvantages and some other stuff. Again, the page numbers aren't marked so look for it under 'Mechanical Harvesting' which is about 3/5ths of the way down. I hope this'll resolve the notability issue and I can remove more of the poor references later. Here is it: [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invmog (talk • contribs) 01:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• CommentMy apologies; I just now saw Epipelagic's last comment and I also forgot to sin my last comment. Um, Epidelagic, I'm not opposed to there being a more general article which is includes many different types of mechanical lake weed harvesting methods. However, I haven't done any research on those so you'll have to do that on your own. With the latest reference that I found (the one which I found after you said that the article "as it stands should be speedy deleted") I think the article meets now WP:N. It's true that I'm opposed to usurping this article into a more general one, but if you really that a more general article is needed then I could help you with it some, but after my latest reference I think Tryptofish would agree that this article has at least three very reliable and independent references right now and I can remove more of the poor references later (it's dinner time, sorry). Thanks for the feedback. Invmog (talk) 01:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Well, Epidelagic, we can make your "Aquatic Weed Control Machines" article. I'll help you with it, but I still think that after my latest reference 'Lake Mower' is notable enough for its own article. We can get started on it right away, but I guess we should make it in someone's user subpage first. Do you want to make it on my subpage or yours? Invmog (talk) 02:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess it's not not so much that you have a COI, it's rather that you don't actually read what people say before you reply. I didn't say I would write the general article, nor did I did say that it would be a good idea to write articles on every aquatic weedeater on the market. I said the opposite. Let's see if we can make a deal. If you agree

• for a while, to read what people say to you, and then, before you reply, take a deep breath and carefully read again what they actually said
• to drop your idea of writing separate articles for individual products like LakeMower

then in return I will agree to write the article "Aquatic weed control machine" with you over the next few days, and we will submit it for a joint DYK. LakeMower, and maybe some other models, can redirect to the article, and possibly to its own section in the article if we have notable sources. If that's a deal, then I'll start the article at the start of the next day, Wikipedia time (UTC). Have we a deal? --Epipelagic (talk) 06:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've now read what you three times and I fully agree with the first bullet point and the offer you that make is very tempting. The only reason that I don't completely agree with the second bullet point and make a deal with you right now is that I was kind of hoping that the last reference which I found and listed above would help to establish the article's notability. I'll seriously consider your generous offer and I'll let you know before the day is through, Central Time. I wish I could prove this article's notability and still work on an "Aquatic weed control machine" article. I think that all of the before mentioned products "WeedShear, WeedRoller, BeachBuddy, Aquatic Vegetation Groomer, Truxor amphibious weed cutter, SonicSolutions, Aqua Blaster, Lake Roto-Tiller, Big Tooth Lake Weed Rake, Aquamog, AquaTractor" could be in the general article and then starting with the most notable ones we could create articles for them and we could link to them from the general article with the "See main article _________" But anyway, I think submitting "Aquatic weed control machine" for a DYK is a good idea and I'll let you know soon about that offer. Invmog (talk) 17:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I'm putting down what I said on the talk page because probably not everybody checks there always; "Unless, of course, we're talking about the Flymo article which has about one reference which goes back to it's own website, has a list of other products from that company, and has about three external links to its own company's sites... I'd say that the Lake Mower is equally unique but the article is much better sourced than the Flymo page. Not to mention, with y'all's guidance (I've only made one other article which lasted) this article doesn't sound like an advertisement and I'm willing to cut off the 'accessories' section if that'll help attain 'not advertisement' status. I'll put this on the deletion discuss as well so that the other editors can see it." Any thoughts? Invmog (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S.- Does this article still sound like an advertisement? Invmog (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Epipelagic, I said I'd let you know about the deal before the end of the day, Central Time, which is in less than two hours so I'll just say that although I think it's a good idea to create an "Aquatic weed control machine" article I won't accept your request right now because to do that I'd have to scuttle the Lake Mower article which I was still hoping would be notable enough to stay as an article by itself. If it turns out that none of the references provided show this article to notable enough then I'll either look for more references or be glad to co-author an "Aquatic weed control machine" article. But, I do appreciate your generous offer and civility. I was also kind of hoping that after reading my latest comments and as a Senior Editor if you help me improve the Lake Mower article to sound more like an encyclopedia article because I'm comparatively new to editing Wikipedia. Invmog (talk) 04:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)Invmog (talk) 04:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up WP:OTHERSTUFF, I didn't know it existed, but of course it's obvious that my only reason for keeping the Lake Mower article isn't because there is a Flymo article; I just wanted to use it as an example of a unique-to-one-brand technology and I wanted to submit to y'all that the Lake Mower article might be more notable than the Flymo article and it is definitely better sourced, more independently sourced, and also a lot less sounding like an advertisement (I do apologize for making a "too advertizy" article in the first place; I thought that it had been sourced enough and NPOV but y'all have really helped me to improve upon the article, it is the first article that ever written about an aquatic product.) WP:OTHERSTUFF does also say that "...an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement..." P.S.- Does the Lake Mower article still sound like an advertisement? Invmog (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It feels to me like one step forward, one step back. The capitalization problem still needs to be fixed, both in the title and in the text (fixing it in the text will help with the advertisement-sound issue). But for notability, the references are still the important question. The un-numbered reference at the end is a reliable source, but it doesn't really discuss what is on the page. The numbered references now: #1/6, 4, and 11 are RSs, but are more primary sources than secondary ones, #2, 3, 5, 9/12, 10, and 13 are not really appropriate sources, and #7 is somewhere in between. I'd say #8 comes the closest to establishing notability, and it's pretty marginal whether it does. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the help, Tryptofish; I've removed references #2, 3, 5, 9/12, 10, and 13 are which were listed as "not really appropriate sources" and I've fixed capitalization... unless the 'e' in "Eurasian milfoil" should not be capitalized. Thanks again! Invmog (talk) 23:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

And I've made some further fixes myself. (No the milfoil name is fine!) I think the page reads as though it's early-stage encyclopedic now. The question is whether it passes WP:N, which hinges pretty much entirely on what is now reference #5 (formerly 8). --Tryptofish (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Tryptofish; I'll see if I can get another notable source when I have more spare time tomorrow just to put notability beyond question. Invmog (talk) 00:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I found another independent article which mentions them using a lake mower to help them gather seeds from aquatic plants. I think that lake mower is only mentioned on the 4th of 15 pages along with two pictures of it strapped to a net-contraption which they had to gather the seeds behind it. It should be here;[2]. It's probably at best a secondary source, so I'll keep looking for a more notable one. Invmog (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if it's notable enough for a secondary source, which is why I haven't added it as a reference yet, but in the middle of the 7th page in the right column of this [3] Texas Aquatic Plant Management Society, Inc. Newsletter there's a paragraph about Jenson Technologies and their lake mower. Invmog (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Just so y'all know; I'll be at a business conference over the weekend and so I won't be able to reply to any further developments or look for more references 'til Monday, Central Time. -Invmog (talk) 03:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Relisted as there appears to have been significant improvement to the tone of the article but the weight of argument remains with delete. I think this needs further review and comment to establish a consensus reflective of the current state. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. A lot of work has been put in to improve the article, but it doesn't seem to be notable enough to stand on its own. As stated above I agree that the proper course of action is to create an overall aquatic weed control article. Daa89563 (talk) 12:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment- I'm still for keep because, to quote Tryptofish, "I think the page reads as though it's early-stage encyclopedic now.[i.e. most of the reasons why the article was nominated for deletion in the first place have been fixed] The question is whether it passes WP:N, which hinges pretty much entirely on what is now reference #5 (formerly 8) [which I believe is now reference #6]" and if that source and the others don't establish notability (please check them) then I'm committed to finding more that do, indeed I found two other possibly secondary sources (which I listed above) but I haven't used them in the article yet because I was seeking feedback from Tryptofish as I was taking all of his advice on how to improve the article. Invmog (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Userify. Well, my feedback is to delete from article space and move into user space, until when and if those sources can be found. I've tried to help about as much as I can, but, as I said, it hinges at this point on one reference, but that one reference makes a pretty thin case, and I agree with Spartaz that the weight of argument remains with delete. I also agree with Daa89563 that a more general article about all the devices in this category (there are a couple of them discussed in that one reference) would be a better way to go. I'd be happy to see Invmog develop the page better in user space, and then bring it back when it's ready. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. Yes, it looks like I might have to userify it, which, if that's the case, I might need help doing it because I'd love to include this deletion discussion that way when I re-release the article with more references we won't have to have more lengthy deletion discussions covering the exact same topics. I recently came across a reference which could very well prove notability for the article, which means it wouldn't have to be userified, but I have still have to look more closely at it when I get the time to do so, and then I'll put it either in this discussion or in the page itself. If that fails, then I'd be open to having it be userified; I'll try and let y'all know before the end of the day, American Central Time. Invmog (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry; I didn't get to look at more references as I'd hoped to do today. Give me just one more day (January 26th 2010 American Central Time) to try and find references to prove the article's notability and then if I can't do that then I'll freely consent to having this article userified until I can get more references for it and I could also then create a more general article (which I'm not opposed to creating a more general article right now, I was just hoping that this article could sand on its own notability, being a rather unique technology and all.) Invmog (talk) 05:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to be stalling or filibustering, had looked at all of the references provided in the article and the two or three external references which I have listed in the above discussion (which are not a part of the article as of yet) and then I also found a few more references although by themselves they not be the best of references:

a. b. c. d. e.

I was wondering if finding so many references like them and the ones in the article (some of which are pretty notable) collectively build a case for the article's notability, which is the only contested issue of this deletion discussion anymore. If, after reviewing all of the article's references and the above references and external links, the consensus says that this article is should be userified then I'll happily comply, only as stated earlier, I'd need some help userifying it because I'd love to be able to keep this deletion discussion with the article if that's allowed after something has been re-userified and re-released. Invmog (talk) 04:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Delete The sources provided by Invmog are either press releases or forums. This coverage is not enough to establish notability per WP:N. Cunard (talk) 05:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. Cunard, I just wanted to make sure that you also checked reference #6 in the article which is to a report by the Department of Ecology, State of Washington. [4], but yes I figured most of the other references were rather weak, which is why I've consented to the article being placed back onto my user space until more notable references can be found, but as I've said earlier I'd need someone to help me do that as I don't know how to take this deletion discussion along with the article or if I'm even allowed to keep the deletion discussion linked to from the article's talk page if it is userified. Invmog (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, I reviewed that source and do not see how it establishes notability. The page appears to be a short directory of companies. It states, "The following list of vendors is provided for your information. It is not our intention to endorse or promote specific vendors or products and this list may not be comprehensive. Vendors who wish to be added to this list should contact [NAME] at [EMAIL]." Cunard (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to the information provided about lake mowers above the part which you quoted. Again, I'm not opposed to the article being userfied; I just need help doing it. Invmog (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about being able to still have access to this deletion discussion. It will remain archived, and you can come to it from your watchlist or user contributions any time. If the decision is delete (as I expect it will be, to be honest), the closing administrator can help you userify the article. (If you want to do it manually now, create a page as a subpage of your user page, then copy and paste the entire article there.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I was just wondering if there was a Wikipedia guideline against me linking to the deletion discussion from the article's talk page after it's userfied. Invmog (talk) 05:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Not that I know of, and I doubt it. Normally, when an article is kept after an AfD, there is a permanent link to the AfD discussion at the top of the article's talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright then; I've copied it to my userspace with a link to this deletion discussion on its talk page. Thanks for all your help on improving it, Tryptofish, I appreciate it. Invmog (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

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.