Talk:ThermaHelm

Link farm

There is no point adding a long list of external links to this article - see WP:ELNO - links should be kept to a minimum. If any of those links are suitable references, then that's different, but they should be used as inline citation using {{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, or {{cite journal}} as appropriate. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Saving the Article

Sorry to wade in at the last minute here, but I've just been commissioned by the University to try and save this wikipage from deletion. I've reviewed all the notes, links, and previous versions of this page and it appears that you've got the right of it when you say that this was started up as a shameless attempt to plug the helmet to people (and at a price that far outstrips the reported selling price in other sources). But I'd argue that the Thermahelm is still a viable addition to a database trying to gather together information about motorcycling so I suggest that, instead of deleting the page, we make an attempt to renovate it. This would involve removing the external link to that official website and replacing those references that 'talk-up' the Thermahelm (like the one concerning Martin Dugard's endorsement) with more neutral press-releases. I'd re-write the article to go more along the lines of how the helmet works, it's development history, and the critical responses to its release and its performance history to date; there must be information floating around on the helmet's safety-test record, certification etc. I'll happily take on the research (I'm a graduate doing an MRES at Strathclyde University) and do most of the work for this (I'm being paid to, after all) but though I do have a good many years of experience in researching and writing academic articles, I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and its referencing system; if you folks opt to keep the page then I'd appreciate it if someone with more experience looked my work over and helped correct any errors in style or referencing.

Barr59 (talk) 12:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

You state I've just been commissioned by the University to try and save this wikipage from deletion, so the very first thing I suggest is that you read WP:COI. If you decide to carry on after reading it then make sure people know about your commercial involvement with the subject of the article. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Will do. I'm aware that doing edit-work in a free encyclopaedia for commission isn't exactly in keeping with the spirit of things but I figure if this gets done properly then it'll all work out; the motorcycling Wikiproject gets another article, I get paid while learning a little about how to make contributions to Wikipedia, and the people trying to set up promotional spam for a product get roadblocked by a neutral, verified article. If I decide to go ahead after reading the info on COI then I'll make sure to let people know what my motivations are. Barr59 (talk) 16:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia is not attempting to create a database of motorcycling knowledge. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the standard for inclusion is in Wikipedia:Notability -- in a nutshell "significant and enduring notice by the world at large." The lack of significant coverage by independent reliable sources is the reason for the deletion proposal. Rewriting the article along the lines you propose sounds fine, but the fundamental question is, which sources will you use? Aside from press releases and fluff, where is the independent coverage from recognized experts? If there is any truth to the claims about these helmets, those sources will exist in a year or two. In the meantime, it is not the function of an encyclopedia to have articles based on rumor, speculation, conjecture, and self-promotion. See WP:NOT. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right there. I've checked for the kind of third-party sources that you described but, like you say, it appears to be mostly formed of speculation and personal editorial opinions. I found some information in medical journals concerning the treatment of TBI using hypothermic medicine and while it does seem to help, the research is still in trials and appears to depend on core-temperature cooling as opposed to specifically cooling the head (and has its own wikipage already in any case). For that reason, I'll be stepping back from this. Thanks for being patient. Barr59 (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I hope you'll contribute on other things, Barr59, and come by our talk pages if you have questions. Certainly there is benefit to us as a group (of motorcyclists) and would have prevented me from having a month while my brain finished resetting itself a few years ago. There's a difference between that and meeting Wikipedia's guidelines, naturally, otherwise I'd promote many of my personal projects more. tedder (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about the head injury, Tedder; that must have been difficult to bounce back from. I've actually been meaning to get involved with Wikipedia for a while; I studied it and similar projects like Gutenburg for a dissertation. I'm afraid my area of specialisation would take me away from motorcycles but once I've got a bit of experience together, and read the rest of the documentation, maybe I'll be able to help the project out sometime. Pro bono, of course ; ). Barr59 (talk) 18:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Could also redirect to new section to Motorcycle helmet that summarizes new helmet technology, cooling, gel exteriors, variable tint visors, helmet radios and whatnot. Wouldn't even have to mention ThermaHelm by name in the body text; just the footnotes. Most of these trademark names like SRAD and EXUP and stability control just confuse the reader anyway. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)