Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nalgene

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of the page entitled Nalgene.

This page is kept as an historic record.

The result of the debate was to keep the article.

Orphan. Advert for a brand of water-bottle. Company may deserve an article (their web site always uses the form "NALGENE"[1]), or, more likely the parent co.[2], but unless someone is interested enuf to do so, delete ad. Niteowlneils 21:25, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Ad. Why keep lists of different types of water bottles on WikiPedia. PS Nite, I added the Vfd message on the page. JFW | T@lk 21:30, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Thue 21:51, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
Delete - David Gerard 22:57, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. "they may acquire this durability from their material, which seems to be some type of polycarbonate." Gee, their durability could have something to do with what they're made of? You think? Good grief, someone who can't be bothered to find out what they're made of shouldn't be writing an article about them. "Very popular at Carleton College." Indeed. I'm at least going to remove those null-content sentences. Dpbsmith 00:43, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
There seems to be a large labware manufacturing company named Nalgene also. Make an article on them? Are they encyclopedia-worthy? Dysprosia 22:32, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm sure it's the same company. Sure, could be encyclopedia-worthy if anyone wants to do the work, but it would be just as easy to start from zero as to start from the current article. Incidentally, the labware company I see does specify the (many different kinds of) polymeric material they use for their products, and has a page, http://nalgenelab.nalgenunc.com/techdata/Chemical/index.asp on the (many different) chemical compositions of their products. Dpbsmith 01:17, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Tenatively keep, though it needs content. These things are quite popular, and deserve to be mentioned as much as any other fad. --Pyro 02:43, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
No Vote yet. Company has a lab division and an outdoor one. My theory (which may add to the article's interest if i can verify it) is that one of their sales people asked why lab customers needed so many of the Lexan 1-liter wide-mouth captive-screw-top over and over, and found out that the staff were stealing them or buying them from employer to use in hiking and rock climbing (bcz nothing that you could pour boiling water into, for winter hiking, or recover undamaged after dropping it off a 50-ft cliff, was available on the consumer market) and made the suggestion to advertise to a whole new market. Other outdoors manufacturers make accessories specifically sized for compatibility with the classic Nalgene bottle. Nalgene also have recently gone into competition with the established companies Camelback, Platypus, & Dromedary in "hydration systems" (bladder and hose, strap-to-your-back or slip-into-your-pack, schemes, originated for serious cyclists) offering at least one unique and valuable feature. And i think at least one pack manufacturer is factory-installing Nalgene hyd. syses into some of their packs. I'll comment again after editing &/or research.
Depending on how seriously we want to cover hiking, mountaineering, backpacking, perhaps we should have the dehydration article maybe link to an edited version of this.
BTW, the fad aspect of this is part of a larger fad of adapting outdoors gear to urban student/yuppy life-styles; anyone know if we specifically cover that?
--Jerzy(t) 03:25, 2004 May 26 (UTC)
- I've done a big edit. If anyone thinks this is gettting close, i will vote keep, give some attention to the red links, and encyclopediize my rant of 05:36, 2004 May 15, on Talk:Hiking, to help de-orphanize this article. --Jerzy (t) 20:09, 2004 May 26 (UTC)

Keep. Great work done to save it. Dysprosia 22:45, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
Keep. An industry standard; article can pull together info that may be hard to tease out of the sources. --Jerzy (t) 23:42, 2004 May 26 (UTC)
Keep most excellent re-write. Niteowlneils 20:18, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Excellent rewrite. Andris 15:35, May 28, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue or the deletion should be placed on other relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.