Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Products

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Damiens.rf (talk | contribs) at 02:56, 17 January 2022 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heather Rene Smith.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Companies
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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:
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 redirect to List of people in Playboy 2000–2009#2007. ✗plicit 11:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Rene Smith

Heather Rene Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biography for a non-notable playmate model. damiens.rf 02:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:46, 18 January 2022 (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. Consensus is this does not meet notability standards. Star Mississippi 21:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ebix Smartclass

Ebix Smartclass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Coverage are press releases, passing mentions, or routing coverage. Does not seem to meet WP:NCORP. Could be redirected to Ebix. MarioGom (talk) 11:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: There is a lot of repetition about the ownership history across the Educomp Solutions, Ebix Smartclass Educational Services and this article, all of which are recently created by the same editor. Despite that weight of content, it is probably worth considering the present article as being about the SmartClass product and assessing any notability in that respect. This source (2018) indicates that SmartClass was in use in 75,000 classrooms in India. AllyD (talk) 11:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Nothing said about this company besides routine business actions, with the possible exception of a minor bankruptcy controversy not reported outside business and local press (which would be but one event). No evidence of notability; lacking WP:CORPDEPTH. FalconK (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Ebix page. This seems to be a good candidate for deletion but the information would sit nicely there and would add some heft to the other page. Gusfriend (talk) 02:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. ––FormalDude talk 20:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Routine brochure article. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creepTalk 00:07, 31 January 2022 (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. Arguments based on gng do not address NCORP concerns and an article on a brand should be sourced to coverage of rhe brand not individual products to avoid OR. Spartaz Humbug! 22:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lowepro

AfDs for this article:
Lowepro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Re-nominating this article 9 years on. Many of the cited sources are merely reviews of products as is typical for manufacturers of goods sold at retail; there are passing mentions of the company here and there, but it lacks the substantial independent third-party coverage in reliable sources that are looked for in WP:NCORP. The page remains heavily weighted toward promotional content and relies for its non-promotional statements mostly on other than reliable sources and press releases. A search for anything that might make it notable, in terms of its impact as a company or any important events it might have played a role in, comes up empty. It's run of the WP:MILL. The previous discussion resulted in no consensus. I suggest it be deleted. FalconK (talk) 08:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:32, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is an advertisement. I note that about half the article is a discussion of which model might fit a particular person's needs. That's helpful and appropriate, but for their website, which is where anyone would look for it.`` DGG ( talk ) 07:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed unsourced content or content sourced to self-published sources from the "Products" section. The section now has:

    The Slingshot range is aimed at professional news and sports photographers,[6] providing easy access to cameras for rapid shooting; CNet found the SlingShot 300 AW Camera Bag offered good protection and easy access.[7] The FastPack is a rucksack-style range, which CNet found less refined.[8]

    and is sourced to Amateur Photographer and CNET. This is neutral and balanced and is not advertising. Cunard (talk) 08:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Allday, Erin (2001-01-30). "Camera bag maker a picture of health. Sr company leads world in meeting needs of professional photographers". The Press Democrat.

      The article provides 1,056 words about Lowepro. The article notes:

      Just about every serious photographer in the world knows about Lowepro. Lowepro camera bags are sold in more than 60 countries. They have been lugged up Mount Everest and hiked into the Alaskan back country. And most of them came from an unimpressive warehouse on Guerneville Road in Santa Rosa. Lowepro is one of the biggest camera bag dealers in the world. Its parent company is based in Toronto, but since the early '90s, all of the design and distribution work has been done by about 25 employees based at the Lowepro headquarters in Santa Rosa.

      ...

      Lowepro started in 1981 as a division of Lowe Alpine Systems, an outdoor-gear maker in Colorado. That company was started by three brothers who were outdoor enthusiasts.

    2. Lee, Marc (2003-09-05). "Get in gear". The Dallas Morning News.

      The article provides 220 words of coverage about Lowepro. The article notes: "Backpackers and nature photographers have relied on Lowepro's versatile and rugged camera-bag systems for 30 years. The packs' hooks, loops and malleable partitions make them adaptable to any trip, and their nearly bulletproof nylon skins and cushioned compartments are both protective and lightweight - perfect for the trail or mountaintop."

    3. Dunn, James (2016-03-28). "Petaluma's Lowepro seeks sales boost with drone carrier". North Bay Business Journal. Archived from the original on 2022-01-31. Retrieved 2022-01-31.

      The article notes: "Lowepro was originally part of a company founded in about 1967 by Colorado-based Greg Lowe, whose innovations included internal-frame backpacks. That part of the company became Lowe Alpine, owned by U.K.-based Equip Outdoor Technologies Holdings, which also has the Rab brand of outdoor clothing and sleeping bags, founded by British mountaineer Rab Carrington. Lowepro is owned by DayMen Canada Acquisition ULC, based in Luxembourg, with an office in Toronto. The company's main products were originally designed for professional photographers, but Lowepro is expanding to build packs for drones, students and travelers."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Lowepro to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 08:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response Cunard's grasp of NCORP is worringly deficient despite several editors attempting to assist him in grasping some of the peculiarities of NCORP guidelines. For here, Cunard is ignoring the fact that the topic is a company while the references he's relying on talk about the product. Fails CORPDEPTH. The last reference from the North Bay Business Journal from 2016 is an advertorial for bags to carry drones. Fails ORGIND. HighKing++ 19:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have addressed the company versus brand topic below. I do not agree that the profile from the North Bay Business Journal is an advertorial, which is defined as "an advertisement in the form of editorial content". It is a profile of the company from a reputable publication. It has a positive tone and includes quotes from people affiliated with the company, but there is no evidence that the profile in the North Bay Business Journal is an advertisement. Cunard (talk) 07:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a "Journalism advertorial" which is defined as The organization wants to attract media attention to a subject or themselves. There isn't one sentence in that entire article that is "clearly attributable" to a source unrelated to the company. But that said ... I agree with your point below about it being a "brand" and not a "company" ... so I'm not sure if NCORP applies anymore although I don't know for sure. HighKing++ 13:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lowepro participants: Tagremover (talk · contribs), Nick-D (talk · contribs), Colapeninsula (talk · contribs), and Hoary (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 08:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete *Update* I'm leaving the Delete !vote because I think a "brand" falls under NCORP guidelines but I'm not 100% sure. If it doesn't and some other guideline of GNG applies, I'll revisit my !vote. Just to be clear, there's a lot of reviews about their products. Unless those references continue in-depth information on the company, they don't assist in establishing notability of the company. The appropriate guideline for both is NCORP. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 19:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is about the brand (the company's goods), not the company. From Lowepro: "Lowepro is a brand of carrying bags". If the article was about the company, it would say "Lowepro is a company that sells carrying bags". There is significant coverage about the brand through the numerous product reviews and through the sources I provided.

    From brand, "A brand is a name ... that identifies one seller's good or service as distinct from those of other sellers."

    I consider a brand to be about a set of a company's products (so product reviews can be used to establish notability), not about the company itself. If you think otherwise, is there any alternative to deletion per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion to reframing the article to be about the products so that this can be retained? It does not make sense to delete an article about a brand that has received numerous product reviews just because the company itself did not receive significant coverage. The brand is notable, not the company.

    Cunard (talk) 07:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response There's an "Infobox Company" and a "History of the company" section so it looked to me like an article on a company which originally was part of Lowe Alpine (which was acquired by Rab (company) which was in turn acquired by "Equip Outdoor Technologies"). But I understand your point - despite the structure of the article, there doesn't appear to be a *company* of this name (correct me if I'm wrong), only a brand name. At some point the "Lowepro" brand was acquired by another company and is now owned by Vitec Group (which owns a ton of brands and has no wikipedia article). I'm not sure which guideline applies for a brand .... perhaps NCORP should still apply? HighKing++ 13:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with your analysis that there is no company by the name of Lowepro, only a brand name. I consider a brand to be a product or perhaps more accurately, a set of products. I think the relevant guideline to apply for a brand is still NCORP, specifically Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Products and services. The brand Lowepro has received significant coverage through numerous product reviews so it passes NCORP. Cunard (talk) 06:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It still isn't straight forward though. The problem with that approach though is that there aren't any reviews on the "brand" per se, only individual reviews for individual products. So we run the risk of WP:OR in trying to create a "brand" topic. HighKing++ 16:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm happy to keep this per WP:GNG, I feel Cunard has successfully demonstrated notability. The problems identified by the initial delete vote appear to have been resolved. NemesisAT (talk) 12:40, 6 February 2022 (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 Pantyhose#Use by men. Content can be merged from history if desired. Sandstein 09:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pantyhose for men

AfDs for this article:
Pantyhose for men (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a confused and confusing article. Men wear pantyhose, but I'm not sure that's encyclopedically notable. Part of what is included - NFL players, scuba divers - is compression sleeves or support hose, and not pantyhose as the term is typically understood. Sourcing is primary and even the ones that are secondary do not discuss it as being a thing for men aside from this piece and possibly this (if someone can find a working archive).

As a result, I'm not sure this can be solved editorially, nor is there a viable merger as an ATD. There could be some discussion of this in drag, or other cross dressing, or medical clothing. But I'm not sure that's possible so we're here. Star Mississippi 16:48, 14 January 2022 (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. A redirect to Samsung Galaxy A series might make sense, but I'll leave that for others to decide since there was no discussion of it here. RL0919 (talk) 13:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung Galaxy A01 Core

Samsung Galaxy A01 Core (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is not notable. I can't find a single reliable source, that gives much information about this phone. It only cites one source, that only gives its specifications. I can't find reliable source giving more information about this phone. Delete it, because Wikipedia is not a directory for everything in the universe. Delete it, unless better sources can be found. Blue Mango Juice (talk) 13:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 11:10, 26 January 2022 (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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States casebooks in current publication

List of United States casebooks in current publication (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:LISTN. (originally proposed by user:JBchrch) RockstoneSend me a message! 00:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • It almost makes me think that the user is just doing that to be disruptive. Should I report him to WP:ANI? It's not intractable, but it would be nice if the user would respond to us instead of forcing us to go through AFD each time... -- RockstoneSend me a message! 10:31, 12 January 2022 (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 12:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Khazar English–Azerbaijani Comprehensive Dictionary

Khazar English–Azerbaijani Comprehensive Dictionary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reads like an advertisement, all sources are self-published. I don't really see why this translation dictionary is particularly notable. Might be able to be mentioned in the Khazar University article, but nothing more than a passing mention is needed. Mako001 (C)  (T)  11:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably mention that Kevo327 had recommended that I have a look at some of the articles relating to this university, so it would probably be best to consider their vote to be part of the nomination.Mako001 (C)  (T)  22:20, 12 January 2022 (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 Samsung Galaxy M series#2020 lineup (2nd generation). ✗plicit 00:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung Galaxy M01

Samsung Galaxy M01 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article amounts to a spec sheet without any encyclopedic coverage whatsoever. I can't find a single review from a reliable source or any reliable sources discussing this phone in any substantial depth. India Express is a reliable source, but there's basically nothing in those few paragraphs that you couldn't find on the M01's GSMArena page, and the NDTV article one is just a trivial piece about the M01 getting Android 11. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 18:27, 9 January 2022 (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 draftify. ✗plicit 13:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glass (social network)

Glass (social network) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Did a WP:BEFORE search, doesn't pass WP:BASIC or WP:SIGCOV. Article tone isn't the worst, but it's a promotional piece with no independent coverage. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion I created a stub article in hope it could be developed further. Don't really understand why someone wants to come along and delete it. It is not a promotional piece but states what it is and who it is intended for. I am not an employee or investor in the company. I would agree the article needs more work. However, if you create something in good faith, and then it's deleted because it's not a perfect article right away, that seems like a deterrent to working on Wikipedia. Moreover, the idea that the article has no independent coverage is patently untrue, given that both PetaPixel and writer Om Malik are independent from Glass.Fletcher (talk) 05:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify so it can be developed further and the author can prove its notability. It's not as promotional as claimed. Neocorelight (Talk) 12:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify is fine, but I'm not sure the subject meets WP:GNG. The best source I could find is this coverage from TechRadar. This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Suriname0 (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - I added a couple of sources to beef this up but I think it's WP:TOOSOON. Hopefully there's be more coverage coming so we can revisit. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 20:51, 18 January 2022 (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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Products&oldid=1066159979"