🇮🇷 Iran Proxy | https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/NATO_watch_strap
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NATO watch strap

From 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 delete and redirect to Watch strap#NATO Straps. — The Earwig talk 07:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

"The durability of the strap prevents moisture from wicking away on the skin"; ", the G10 NATO strap has become a favourite among watch fans everywhere.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]"; "NATO straps are known for being relatively inexpensive"; "NATO straps are also known for being easy to clean and swap around for daily use"; "NATO straps are available in different sizes, lengths and designs to accommodate a wide variety of designs and watch composures"; "NATO straps are also used amongst deep sea divers and water-sports".

Instead of feeling informed, I feel like I should buy a watch and replace its strap with a NATO strap. As I was recently informed about the existence of WP:NCORP, these articles are expected to have content that sounds encyclopedic and not as an advert. According to this person here, who seems to work for a company owning the trademark, "the references used are only bloggers opinions with misleading information." The most reliable source seems to be Fortune[1], and the title "Your Watch Needs a NATO Strap" sounds like a sponsored-content article.

If the article is to be kept, it truly needs to be completely rewritten to be encyclopedic. (CC) Tbhotch 21:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. (CC) Tbhotch 21:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE that the editor who created this article is a litigious so and so who holds trademarks, and has initiated proceedings against others, but not us. Has today made a chilling legal threat though, but not in a particularly high profile spot. -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 22:08, 22 January 2021 (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.