Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Products: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:34, 12 September 2021

Note: In some cases there is another, more specific category than this one. If possible, please use one of these instead:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Albums and songs (e.g. CDs and singles)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Anime and manga (e.g. comic books, DVDs)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Comics and animation (same as above)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Companies
Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Games (e.g. board games)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature (e.g. books)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Software
Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Transportation (e.g. cars)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Products. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Products|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Products.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Products/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Products

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 keep. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 19:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ABC Fine Wine & Spirits

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

Article likely fails WP:ORG, and was created originally by an author affiliated with said company. Not enough secondary sources either. --Z L Media 22:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. --Z L Media 22:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. --Z L Media 22:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. --Z L Media 22:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. --Z L Media 22:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Do note that even though the page was created by someone affiliated with the company, that is not inherently grounds for deletion. This editor declared his WP:COI, and per Xtools only has 18% authorship of the page. Curbon7 (talk) 05:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ The Orlando Sentinel piece is surprisingly in-depth about the company. Mlb96 (talk) 22:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Didn't realize that WP:NORG specifically requires multiple sources, so I'm striking my !vote. Mlb96 (talk) 22:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Decided to see if there are any in-depth sources:

Florida Trend article about its history and doesn't seem like a press release – The Grid (talk) 12:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found coverage in news: WFLA, WJXT, Tampa Bay Times, The Capital and Miami Herald. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apopolips (talk • contribs) 22:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Other than the first citation about the owner dying, the rest are just "opening a new store" or "starting alcohol delivery". Which are really just press releases. Nothing of note about the company itself. Oaktree b (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although both the Florida Trend article and the Orlando Sentinel article appear to be puff pieces, it isn't a clear and certain fact and it could be argued that the text contains enough "fact checking" and "opinion" to meet WP:ORGIND so giving the benefit of the doubt coupled with the age and size of this company, I'd say it is notable and meets WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the Florida Trend article feels a tad promotional, it is in-depth and appears to be independent (has an author listed, part of a series about 350 Florida companies). While I can't access the Orlando Sentinel article, if it is as described by Mlb96 then we have multiple reliable, independent, in-depth sources. There is also a wide range of sources already cited in the article. I feel WP:GNG has been met. NemesisAT (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A family liquor store with some money to spend on advertising. scope_creep^Talk 12:28, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not one store, rather a chain of 140 according to the article. NemesisAT (talk) 18:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per HighKing. Passes WP:NCORP.4meter4 (talk) 21:48, 25 September 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.

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 keep. – Joe (talk) 13:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

100 Best Companies to Work For

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

Annual list produced by Forbes. Seven of the sources are to Forbes, making them not independent, while the eighth is a passing mention that uses the list to study the performance of companies with better cultures to the market as a whole - in other words, not significant coverage.

A WP:BEFORE search turns up very little; the vast majority is press releases by the companies who receive the awards, while the infrequent independent coverage focuses on individual companies who are placed on this list, rather than the award in general. BilledMammal (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Filbeck, Greg; Preece, Dianna (June–July 2003). "Fortune's Best 100 Companies to Work for in America: Do They Work for Shareholders?". Journal of Business Finance & Accounting. 30 (5–6). Wiley: 771–797. doi:10.1111/1468-5957.05362. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  The abstract notes: "In this paper we examine the market reaction to the announcement by Fortune of the ‘Best 100 Companies to Work for in America.’ Employees rate firms based on several criteria including trust in management, pride in work/company and camaraderie. To examine long-term performance, we calculate raw and risk-adjusted returns and then compare them to the returns of a matched sample of firms. In addition, we calculate the return on a buy and hold investment in the sample firm less the return on a buy-and-hold investment in a matched sample firm (BHARs). We find a statistically significant positive response to the announcement of the ‘100 best companies to work for’ by Fortune. Also, based on all measures of risk-adjusted return, we find these firms generally outperform the matched sample of companies. The BHAR results, although not exhibiting the level of statistical significance, are consistent with the raw and risk-adjusted return results."
2. Bernardi, Richard A.; Bosco, Susan M.; Vassill, Katie M. (2006-06-01). "Does Female Representation on Boards of Directors Associate With Fortune's "100 Best Companies to Work For" List?". Business & Society. 45 (2). SAGE Publishing: 235–248. doi:10.1177/0007650305283332. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  The abstract notes: "This study examines the influence of women in business using a sample of firms on Fortune's “100 Best Companies to Work For” list and is an extension of Bernardi et al.'s work. We use the data from Bernardi et al. to determine whether a higher representation of women on a board signals an increased commitment of a firm to a quality environment and employment characteristics necessary to establish the firm on Fortune's “100 Best Companies to Work For” list. Our findings include a significant increase in the number of female directors on Fortune 500 companies between 1977 and 2001. The initial analysis of the 27 firms appearing on both Fortune's “100 Best Companies to Work For” list and the Fortune 500 in 2001 indicates a positive correlation between the number of female directors and a company's appearance on the “100 Best Companies to Work For” list."
3. Dominick, Peter G.; Iordanoglou, Dimitra; Prastacos, Gregory; Reilly, Richard R. (2020-07-02). "Espoused Values of the "Fortune 100 Best Companies to Work For": Essential Themes and Implementation Practices". Journal of Business Ethics. 173. Springer Science+Business Media: 69–88. doi:10.1007/s10551-020-04564-8. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  The abstract notes: "This study identifes and describes the values espoused by the 62 companies that have consistently (2014–2018) appeared on the “Fortune 100 Best Companies to Work For” (FBCWF) list. We identify 24 separate values and ofer an analysis of the keywords and phrases used to promote them. We confirm that these values fall within the categories of four well-accepted theoretical frameworks of corporate values and culture."
4. Simon, Daniel H.; DeVaro, Jed (December 2006). "Do the best companies to work for provide better customer satisfaction?". Managerial and Decision Economics. 27 (8). Wiley: 667–683. doi:10.1002/mde.1303. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  The abstract notes: "Using data from both the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) and Fortune Magazine's lists of Best Companies, we examine the relationship between making the ‘100 Best’ list and customer satisfaction. Based on a subset of the 100 Best in each year from 1994 to 2002, we find strong evidence that firms on the list earn higher customer satisfaction ratings than firms not on the list."
5. Goenner, Cullen F. (2008). "Investing in Fortune's 100 Best Companies to Work for in America". Journal of Economic Insight. 34 (1). Missouri Valley Economic Associatio: 1–19. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  The abstract notes: "Each year, since 1998, Fortune magazine has published a list of firms deemed the “100 Best Companies to Work for in America” based on their superior employer-employee relations. This relationship represents an intangible asset that may significantly influence future firm performance. We investigate whether investment strategies that invest in the 100 Best are able to outperform the market. The results indicate that portfolios, consisting of firms on the list, offer higher risk adjusted returns than the S&P 500 over the period 1998-2005."
6. Fulmer, Ingrid Smithey; Gerhart, Barry; Scott, Kimberly S. (2006-12-07). "Are the 100 best better? An empirical investigation of the relationship between being a "great place to work" and firm performance". Personnel Psychology. 56 (4). Wiley: 965–993. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00246.x. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  The abstract notes: "We then empirically investigate whether positive employee relations is related to firm performance, focusing on publicly traded firms included in the “100 Best Companies to Work for in America.” The relative performance of these “Best Companies” is examined via comparisons to both companies in the broad market and a group of matched firms. Our analyses suggest that companies on the 100 Best list enjoy not only stable and highly positive workforce attitudes, but also performance advantages over the broad market, and in some cases, over the matched group."
7. Romero, Eric J. (2004-05-01). "Are the Great Places to Work Also Great Performers?". Academy of Management Perspectives. 18 (2). Academy of Management. doi:10.5465/ame.2004.13835923. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  The abstract notes: "The article discusses research pertaining to the actual performance of the 1998 “100 Best Companies to Work for in America,” as listed by the periodical “Fortune.” The researchers used both stock market data and accounting data to assess firm performance. The study revealed that positive employee relations were beneficial for companies and may be related to overall improved performance. The research indicates that the time and money spent to create and support positive employee relations are a worthwhile investment."
8. Bhaskaran, Rajesh Kumar; Ting, Irene Wei Kiong; Azizan, Noor Azlinna; Yelubolu, Kranthi Vidhatha (2020-11-28). "Determinants and market performance of Fortune 100 best companies: evidence from Islamic perspective". Journal of Islamic Accounting and Business Research. 12 (1). Emerald Group Publishing: 44–59. doi:10.1108/JIABR-12-2019-0248. ISSN 1759-0817. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  The abstract notes: "Islam is valid for every place and time, and it promotes fair and equitable employees’ relations as an essential corporate social responsibility (CSR) policy for successful organisations such as Fortune 100 companies. Whence, this study aims to explore Fortune 100 best companies exhibit better market performance and capitalisation relative to other companies in relation to their employees’ satisfaction as a significant contributor to better performance."
9. Joyce, Kevin E. (March–April 2003). "Lessons for employers from Fortune's "100 best"". Business Horizons. 46 (2): 77–84. doi:10.1016/S0007-6813(03)00013-2. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  The abstract notes: "Fortune's '100 Best Companies to Work For,' which are both superlative workplaces and superior performers, have some important lessons to teach. A content analysis of the websites of these firms and a comparison group suggests 3 lessons: 1. The 100 Best are distinguished by employee development programs, diversity initiatives, and a fun work environment. 2. They use their websites to tell the world about themselves. 3. They take advantage of the BRS cycle: Behavior creates the desirable workplace, which leads to public recognition, which leads to a company's public signaling about its work environment - which in turn leads back to behavior which creates the desirable workplace."
10. Swanson, Douglas J. (2004). "Narratives of Job Satisfaction on the World Wide Web: Interpretations of Value and Reward Within the "100 Best Companies to Work for in America"". Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication. Retrieved 2021-09-12 – via Bepress. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  The abstract notes: "This research analyzed employee job satisfaction narratives on World Wide Web sites of companies named among Fortune magazine’s “100 Best Companies to Work for in America.” Fewer than one-third of WWW sites included narratives. Narratives were most likely to express job satisfaction in personal, emotional terms and least likely to identify job security, benefits, or compensation as important rewards of work. Narratives often appeared targeted toward new college graduates. Clichés were used excessively in Web sites and narratives."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow 100 Best Companies to Work For to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:30, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I came across a few of those, and there was a similar one used as a source. What I found though was that the list is effectively being used as a data source, and is not itself the subject of coverage. For instance, Dominick et al. 2020 is an analysis of organizational values, and to help them generate their data source they use the discussed list, with the list receiving no significant coverage. Indeed, the list itself is only mentioned three times in the entire paper; once in the title, once in the abstract and once in the introduction.

I will admit that the shear quantity you foundgives me pause, but there are a lot of datasets out there that are used in multiple published works and we don't consider them notable as the use of a data set is not significant coverage of said dataset. BilledMammal (talk) 06:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the list "is not itself the subject of coverage". Here are quotes from the first three sources I listed showing the "list is itself the subject of coverage":
1. Filbeck, Greg; Preece, Dianna (June–July 2003). "Fortune's Best 100 Companies to Work for in America: Do They Work for Shareholders?". Journal of Business Finance & Accounting. 30 (5–6). Wiley: 771–797. doi:10.1111/1468-5957.05362. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  The article notes: "Fortune first started ranking businesses in 1983 with their ‘Most Admired Companies’ list. They ranked both the ‘most admired’ firms and the ‘least admired’ firms in an annual survey. In 1997 they created the first ever list of the ‘World’s Most Admired Companies.’ Finally, with the increasing interest in worker satisfaction in the face of a tight US labor market in the late 1990s, Fortune created the annual ‘100 Best Companies to Work For in America’ award in the January 12, 1998 issue (Levering and Moskowitz, 1998, pp. 84–95).
  The article notes: "We first describe in more detail the Fortune award followed by a discussion of the relevant literature."
  The article further notes: "The ‘100 Best Companies to Work For In America’ list is significantly different from other awards in that the authors, Robert Levering and Milton Moskowitz, survey employees rather than ‘experts’ and company executives. For example, Fortune surveys a traditional group of analysts, fund managers and executives in compiling their ‘Most Admired Firms’ list. [Discussion about another award from the Working Mother magazine] ... In surveying employees directly, Levering and Moskowitz avoid problems of misreporting and exaggeration by firms."
  The article further notes: "In the initial survey of the ‘100 Best Companies to Work For in America,’ Levering and Moskowitz selected 238 companies from a database of more than 1,000 firms that they considered most viable for the award. Companies must be at least ten years old and have a minimum of 500 employees. One hundred and sixty one firms agreed to participate out of the 238 identified companies. The 161 candidate companies were asked to randomly select 225 employees to receive the Great Place to Work Trust Index. [121 more words about the methodology.]"
2. Filbeck, Greg; Preece, Dianna (June–July 2003). "Fortune's Best 100 Companies to Work for in America: Do They Work for Shareholders?". Journal of Business Finance & Accounting. 30 (5–6). Wiley: 771–797. doi:10.1111/1468-5957.05362. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  The article notes: "The research examines whether Fortune’s “100 Best Companies to Work For” have a higher percentage of women on their boards of directors. Fortune and the Great Place to Work Institute have been tracking great employers since 1981. To be eligible, a company must be a least 10 years old and have a minimum of 500 employees. Each candidate company is given 225 Great Place to Work Trust Index surveys to distribute to randomly selected employees that evaluate trust in management, pride in work and company, and camaraderie. The companies were rated on a 175-point scale, using the measurements such as the overall score on the employee survey and an evaluation of the additional handwritten comments from the employees."
3. Dominick, Peter G.; Iordanoglou, Dimitra; Prastacos, Gregory; Reilly, Richard R. (2020-07-02). "Espoused Values of the "Fortune 100 Best Companies to Work For": Essential Themes and Implementation Practices". Journal of Business Ethics. 173. Springer Science+Business Media: 69–88. doi:10.1007/s10551-020-04564-8. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  "FBCWF" stands for "Fortune 100 Best Companies to Work For". The article notes: "The FBCWF list is based on the framework used by the Great Place to Work® Institute to characterize what they consider a best workplace. Factors deemed important include high levels of trust, credible and respectful leadership, pride in the work, and camaraderie. For the United States, the Institute establishes a list of the “100 Best Companies to Work For®”. Since January 1998, the list has been featured in Fortune magazine, but the publication is not involved in the evaluation process. To be considered for the list, a company has to register with the Great Place to Work® Institute, have more than 1,000 employees and have operated in the US for longer than 7 years. They must also meet an initial certifcation standard, defned as an average employee agreement rate of 65% or more across all of the items on the Trust Index© Employee Survey (TIES), one of the two measures used to determine who makes the list each year (Great Place to Work® n.d.). The other measure is the Culture Audit assessment. Approximately 400 companies complete the full application process every year (Giuso et al. 2013). [several more paragraphs]"
Cunard (talk) 08:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard.4meter4 (talk) 21:18, 17 September 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.

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. Sandstein 19:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Q-Bus card list

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

WP:NOTDIR & WP:NOTEVERYTHING - just because we have a single reference (the company's official handbook) doesn't mean that we have to replicate every single entry in the contents section. This list of obsolete 1970s and 1980s computer interface and memory cards adds zero value to Wikipedia and is already summarised to good effect in the parent article Q-Bus. If anything, the sentence there that states "A wide range of interface cards are available for the Q-Bus." could be expanded with a short list grouping the different types of interface. It could also be that this list, being lifted from the source, is copyvio if the descriptions in the function column are lifted word for word - as some seem to be. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd separated it from the parent page in question as IMHO the list was overly long and distracting; deleting this page would therefore be an overall removal of information that existed prior to the page's creation, which isn't to say it shouldn't be done but that some caution should be exercised if that wasn't the intended result. The alternative is to re-merge it back into the Q-Bus page but that would simply take us back to where we started (unless the list can be collapsed; I don't know enough about the finer points of Wiki code to know if that's possible nor how it would be accomplished).

I also dunno if I'm supposed to write "disagree" or "oppose" or something like that in a fancy colour!

--Vometia (talk) 08:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further edit: I'd also remark that "zero value" is rather PoV. Old systems, their research and restoration are seeing a lot of popularity so the information is valuable to those people and its removal therefore unhelpful: what is Wikipedia's value if not to people who are searching for that information? --Vometia (talk) 08:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at other legacy (or even current) bus systems, e.g. VME, ATA, SBUS, UNIBUS, I do not see any other lists of cards. There is a perfectly good and accessible list of Q-BUS cards in the single reference on the article Digital Microcomputer Products Handbook 1985. I don't see why that guide needs to be replicated as a Wikipedia article. Whether the list is here or back in the original article doesn't get around the fact it is way more detail than is necessary. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on one's definition of "necessary"; trouble is, it's a rather subjective measure. tbh I don't have a lot invested either way and as mentioned previously, the article's creation was specifically to remove clutter from the parent. But I tend to fall on the side of being loath to nuke potentially useful information. I guess I disagree with the deletionist stance as the dividing line between useful/useless is an absolute judgement based on an arbitrary cut-off point of the particular deletionist's own devising. Anyway, that's probably a discussion for elsewhere (and another one I'm not all that invested in), my point is that I don't see what is gained by deleting it but I see potential problems with doing so. --Vometia (talk) 11:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep - as above. Disagree with rationale to delete; alternative is to re-merge back into parent article but I don't favour that as a solution as I split this overly-long section to shorten article to reasonable length. --Vometia (talk) 12:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not appropriate for wikipedia. The list can be referenced in the main article. --Bduke (talk) 00:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment: I moved it from the main article because I figured it was clutter (i.e. unduly verbose compared to rest of article, not irrelevant). While I don't really see what is gained by re-merging it I have no especially strong objection and it would be preferable to simply deleting it. --Vometia (talk) 04:06, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Updated to add: I would re-merge it back myself if I could figure out how to get mw-collapsed to work. Which I can't, so if anybody wants to clue me in... --Vometia (talk) 04:21, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's just no reason to have this. It's not encyclopedic content, it's just a parts catalog. PianoDan (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR & WP:NOTEVERYTHING.4meter4 (talk) 20:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As stated above. Wikipedia isn't a regurgitation of what is in effect a glorified parts catalog. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 21:24, 30 September 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.

Well, thanks to all the people who said "delete" and declined to offer advice when asked; and then deleted it without notifying me. Cheers for (yet another) example of Wikipedia's hostility. Every time I edit anything here it doesn't take long before I'm reminded of why I mostly stopped doing so years back. --Vometia (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. ✗plicit 13:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pagan Man

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

Article is a stub and, from what I can establish, it is not clear that there is significant coverage in the sources provided. Iskandar 323 (talk) 11:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Iskandar 323 (talk) 11:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, former product. No reliable sources found; pictures and old ads and such. Could redirect to Jovan, the company that made it. Oaktree b (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom non notable product.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:27, 10 September 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.

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 speedy delete. G12 copyvio per HighKing. Both the English and the original Italian articles were created in one hit rather than slowly evolving. Additiionally, this may well be a purely promotional creation. The product is for sale at the farinabono.ch website and the earliest version of the English article gives that as the Official Site. For the record, I was inclined to keep this had it not been for the copyvio, so there is no obstacle to its recreation as a properly written article. SpinningSpark 14:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Farina bona

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

Doesn't meet WP:N. Possible ATD would be merge/redirect or redirect to Onsernone but I'm not sure it is significant enough to make the article. Boleyn (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Farina bona is recognized as a "Swiss culinary heritage": https://www.patrimoineculinaire.ch/Prodotti?text=Farina+B%C3%B3na&canton=&categorie=#455 --Hadi (talk) 18:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It seems to be a well known food that extends back into antiquity. In looking at google books I got a lot of hits with cookbook recipes using it (mainly in Italian and Swiss but also French and Russian), farina bona ice cream, medieval recipes, etc. Even Hippocrates mentioned it briefly. But I couldn't find any RS just talking about it directly as a product/ history. Only brief mentions. Not sure what to think.4meter4 (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based (1) on the feeling that a lot of half-decent sources writing at least a bit on the subject adds up to the same sort of weight as two sources in depth (I know this is bad arithmetic); (2) on the sheer quantity of Google hits; and (3) on the text: the text refers to historical sources and testimonies, and is either a stupendously good bit of Original Research, or more likely, an article pieced together from decent sources which unfortunately the writer failed to cite. We should delete the incorrigibly non-notable, not the uncontroversial-probably-true-but-not-properly-cited; this latter should be tagged as needing references. Elemimele (talk) 21:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Farina bona is a corn (maize) flour, so any use in the context of Hippocrates or before the 1500s is probably unrelated, and Swiss cuisine suggests corn might not have become a staple before the 1800s -- which is consistent with [1]. Happy with redirection and brief coverage as proposed. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 05:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this was nominated for deletion less than 6 minutes after the nomination of another article. Both nominations used the automated Twinkle suite. The suggestion that the intervening 5 minutes was enough time to conduct WP:BEFORE for topic with a history "that extends back into antiquity", is laughable. So keep and close as out of process, or keep because it meets our inclusion criteria. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per G12 WP:COPYVIO. This article was created in December 2009 and is based on this website's contents also in English language which predate this article. Everything in the article originates from that website and the timing suggests this article was created to promote that business. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing: how do we know that the contents of that site predate the addition of our article? Note that the Italian is an almost verbatim copy of Italian Wikipedia's version as of 2008, while the web archives of the other page date to 2010 only, which means they could well have copied it-wiki. It would be good to know for sure, though. — Amakuru (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru good point but the 2008 Italian wiki page shows a link to this web site which is of the same name but ".ch" and which was in existence in 2007. Although the "Curiosita" page hasn't been archived from 2007, it existed and given the lack of updates to the website in general, my opinion is that this article is a clear copyvio. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim to notability and the years that keep passing by without a reference indicate to me that none are forthcoming. Ifnord (talk) 03:47, 27 September 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.

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. – Joe (talk) 07:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Staingate

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

Non notable. The topic has only gained note within a very small section of a very specific tech-blog sphere. I suspect this issue gained an article, where other issue have not, because of its catchy name and maybe a few customers peeved enough to write about it. Alhough at first glance it appears to meet sourcing requirements, almost every source is a blog—or, as with the Forbes piece, a “contributor” article. My personal stance is that this issue, following the example of the (even more notable) issues with the Samsung Note 7, should be merged into the page for the MacBook Pro. Letting this article hang on also opens up the doors for articles on every product issue with enough coverage or a catchy name. — HTGS (talk) 05:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. — HTGS (talk) 05:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — HTGS (talk) 05:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — HTGS (talk) 05:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:19, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Specific niche interest not of general notability. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 02:24, 19 September 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.

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 redirect to Brianna Wiest. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Mountain Is You

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBOOK. Google gives no indication that the book had any significant coverage: only related coverage on Google News is primary-source Medium article. ‒overthrows 21:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ‒overthrows 21:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no coverage whatsoever about this book in reliable sources. The referencing in the article is to the book itself which is about as primary as it gets. -- Whpq (talk) 00:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Brianna Wiest. I agree that this book doesn't seem to have received any substantial coverage from reliable sources; it fails WP:NBOOK. Redirecting to the author seems like a reasonable WP:ATD, if nothing else per WP:CHEAP. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Extraordinary Writ. Sam Mehrab (talk) 23:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Extraordinary Writ.4meter4 (talk) 00:41, 14 September 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.

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kamvas Studio 22

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

Fails WP:GNG: All sources (except for #6, which is the manufacturer's press release) are technology review websites or forums, where the bar for publication is not relative to any inherent notability of the piece of technology being reviewed. Note that many of these pages can also fall under the WP:SPONSORED banner, where affiliate links are provided at the end of the article, or where the review is commissioned by the company that produces the technology in question. A search of other coverage of the device turns up similar results. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 02:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:39, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just a product spec sheet, the kind of thing that gets obsolete very fast anyway. Article on its company Huion is thin, but could mention maybe one sentence on it. Would support a merge too ,but lean to just delete. W Nowicki (talk) 17:52, 13 September 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.

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 merge to List of Mazda platforms. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mazda B platform

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

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Unsourced articles, purely original research by simply putting together vehicles with the same first letter model code. Andra Febrian (talk) 04:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Andra Febrian (talk) 04:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems pretty obvious that Mazda model's (and the related Ford cars) starting with 'B' are generations of the Mazda 3. See WP:SKYISBLUE. Stepho talk 11:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: WP:SKYISBLUE cannot be applied here because what I'm questioning here is, does "Mazda B platform" even exist at all? Say I go ahead and create an uncited article called "Toyota E platform", and wrote all Corolla generations there. Why not, because we don't need to cite that the sky is blue right? I shouldn't, because "Toyota E platform" isn't a platform at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andra Febrian (talk • contribs)
Delete Nope, it is not "pretty obvious" that such platforms even exist, when there is no trace nor mention of them on a credible website, news source, or database, which can verify or support their existence, in terms of the given manufacturer. WP:SKYISBLUE is not an excuse, which allows for a WP:HOAX of an article to be retained and potentially keep misleading thousands, if not millions of readers who mistakenly take it as credible fact. If we all took that logic on everything, I could easily make up new articles every day on random automotive topics for kicks.

User:Sfoskett created these articles out of thin air over 15 years ago, as they did to the now rightfully deleted Ford P Platform and Ford U Platform articles, which I similarly nominated for deletion on the same grounds and succeeded in removing. I see no reason to keep an article drawn up on a whim with NO independent sources with ANY citations (and tagged as such the past nearly 12 years), as any reason to suggest the opposite is rather transparent and flies in the face of verifiability on Wikipedia. This isn't like saying 2+2 = 4 or H2O = oxygen, so WP:SKYISBLUE is irrelevant.

I thank Andra Febrian for bringing this to attention, as I couldn't make heads or tails of why and how they existed, when (i.e.) the so called Mazda G Platform has never shown up in a Ford-Mazda database/chart in the last 35 years and those midsize platforms were replaced every 2 generations anyway. I recall an issue, where the first D to F segment front-wheel drive Ford platform was inaccurately named D186 for all generations from 1985 through 2006, for no credible reason and relied on as a source for many years by many outside readers, again with 0 citations supporting it. In reality, it was truly broken down into 3 different architectures named DN5 (1985), DN101 (1995), and D186 (revamped DN101 launched 1999). I suggest this Ford article [2] too. Fictional nonsense like this has got to stop, as the end result is a global misunderstanding of a corporate entity and their products by their buyers, enthusiasts, journalists, or any other interested 3rd parties. The fact many of us have our own good-faith contributions heavily scrutinized and dissected, even with less than perfect citations, yet this has remained here so long and never challenged for accuracy/verifiability, borders highly questionable and more.

I thus strongly support deletion of all these articles, as they're misleading drivel, promoting another false (personal) narrative and becoming fodder for lazy journalists to regurgitate and ignorantly report as "fact". Wikipedia has never been a place to create full page articles out of your own personal thoughts. It's a digital encyclopedia, not a journal or diary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carmaker1 (talk • contribs)

I did a bit of hunting. While it's not exactly common in user groups, the spare parts suppliers seem to like calling it the B platform. Also, I found a 2014 manual at https://mega.nz/file/mdR1VAjJ#TmDZY8Mbh4BPzyYdlYMAYB7IRjFNGar7Kf9AXdx2FmU and on page 289 it decodes the VIN to show that 'BM' means Mazda3. Not authoritative on its own but it does hit that it's probably right. Stepho talk 13:01, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't dispute the model codes though, it seems like it's all true despite unsourced. Andra Febrian (talk) 16:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename - it appears that the actual content of the articles (i.e. the two-letter coding) is accurate, but there isn't any such thing per se as a "B platform" (et al) to encompass all of the ones in a particular series. The "Nx" codes for the MX-5/Miata, in particular, are in wide use; eliminating the information altogether would be unproductive. Renaming the articles to remove the implication of a single "N" platform would be the better course of action. --Sable232 (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: In my opinion, it should only be done by merging everything and make it a "List of Mazda model codes". Andra Febrian (talk) 10:57, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd be happy with a merged article. Stepho talk 23:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'd also support a merge - List of Mazda platforms would be a good target, maybe with the content in table format instead of simply a plain list. --Sable232 (talk) 14:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but fix Perhaps the answer is to combine these into a single article or a list or something. Vehicle platforms are often things car people want to know about so I would argue the content is inherently what we want to cover but we are lacking good sourcing at this time. Combining into a single list article might be a good way to help fix this mess vs just erase it. Springee (talk) 11:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and add sources. If there are none available, I'll probably have second thoughts. Waddles 🗩 🖉 20:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to List of Mazda platforms per the reasoning above. This seems like the most obvious merge target since it already exists.4meter4 (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to List of Mazda platforms- insufficient sources to warrant separate articles for each platform. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to List of Mazda platforms since, quite evidently, none of them is worthy of a stand-alone article. Unless, of course, we have the intention of participating in the promotion campaigns of this particular car brand. -The Gnome (talk) 08:01, 12 September 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.

Products Proposed deletions

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 ==Products==
 <!-- New AFD's should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ABC Fine Wine & Spirits}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Best Companies to Work For}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Q-Bus card list}}