Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Products

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.

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 other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Products. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

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

Bradley's Toy Money Complete with Game of Banking

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

Cannot find any significant coverage in reliable sources for this board game. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Games, and Products. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment looks like two previous nominations have failed to delete this in 2009, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bradley's Toy Money Complete with Game Of Banking, which I closed, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bradley's Toy Money Complete with Game Of Banking (2nd nomination). Jclemens (talk) 15:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That first close probably could/should have been a soft delete, though it was 15 years ago and maybe the rules around deletion were more lenient. Conyo14 (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we hadn't invented that then, else I would have done it. Jclemens (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails GNG. Keep per WP:HEY. Guinness did a great job of collecting those ancient journals, enough so that I would consider the article to pass WP:GNG. Conyo14 (talk) 23:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would ask editors who have previously voted to Delete to reconsider the article that I have rewritten. Yes, the original wiki was badly written and was about some collector's single copy of the game, but the original game was actually published in the 1870s and was for many decades considered a valuable educational tool until it was finally discontinued in 1950. Several editions are held in the Smithsonian. I have attempted to source all of this to prove notability. I am sure there must be more sources out there for a game that was available for almost 80 years. If the game survives AfD, I would also suggest changing the article's title to Bradley's Toy Money or Educational Toy Money, since that is what most editions were titled. Guinness323 (talk) 00:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Could you provide a couple of reliable sources? I mean saying it's historical isn't actually proof.~~ Conyo14 (talk) 01:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. I think the book sourcing in combination with the old journal publications is enough to pass GNG. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging all participants from the first two AFDs: Gordonrox24, ImperatorExercitus, Ron Ritzman, SL93, Jujutacular, SarekOfVulcan, King of Hearts, Ret.Prof. BOZ (talk) 05:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tooth & Nail Records discography

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

I don't believe it passes WP:LSC WP:NLIST., because this is essentially a product "catalog" of a record label, which is a publisher. Graywalls (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Products, and Lists. Graywalls (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Record label discography lists are useful and common. Since the label itself is notable, I'd argue the set of releases is notable. Since it is too large to roll into the main article, it makes sense to retain as a standalone list. glman (talk) 20:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Withdrawing my hasty thoughts for more reflection. glman (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Restoring my original opinion. glman (talk) 18:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Discographical information is encyclopedic and necessary for robust coverage of bands and labels. This is, unquestionably, a notable record label. The size of the list does mean it makes sense to have as a standalone article, though a merge is also an option. Chubbles (talk) 07:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just a refresher on a relevant discussion from the past Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not/Archive_59#WP:NOTDIRECTORY,_NOTWEBHOST_for_companies_and_bios which didn't find consensus on exhaustive product catalog for publishers. So, simply splitting off as "product catalog of a publisher" standalone seems like getting around the loophole.*:Graywalls (talk) 07:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lists of "product catalogs of publishers" are routinely notable if the "product" is art. We have, and certainly should have, (attempts at) full catalog lists of publishers like Warner Bros., Pixar, Square, and Motown. If the label is notable, we should cover its artistic output encyclopedically, and that includes discographical information. Chubbles (talk) 01:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please link to guidelines, or discussions corroborating this, thank you. Graywalls (talk) 01:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have never had debates about whether a Pixar movie or Final Fantasy game is a "product". Of course it is a product, but of course that is besides the point. Covering them here in the encyclopedia is covering art history. So, too, is covering Christian rock and emo and metalcore released by an impactful, significant, influential label. Chubbles (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Lists such as these are useful for sure. However, they must still meet WP:NLIST by having significant coverage that discusses the discography as a group. Are these sources available? --CNMall41 (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If we allow things on basis of one person saying "useful" there will be someone saying anything is useful. We'll end up with a "list of Signature Select condiments" and end up with an exhaustive list of their products with Safeway.com as the reference, or the "items sold at Home Depot" and end up with exhaustive list of SKUs. Some hole in the wall record labels are not held sacred over else and I think we shouldn't have product catalogs of this nature. This is going to cause a trend of starting a stand alone list for unacceptable contents to misuse Wikipedia as a webhost. Graywalls (talk) 23:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a clear difference between a list of "condiments" or "items sold at Home Depot" and of albums. A discography of a record label that has existed for over 30 years, has major distribution deals, and has signed many notable artists is objectively not the same as a list of UPC items at the grocery store, nor is it the same as a minor indie label listing their releases. glman (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Synchronized down shift rev-matching system

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

No refs on the page for many years. Appears to be a highly promotional page about a Nissan proprietary product with no indications that I can find of wider notability and importance JMWt (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The term exists [1], but beyond sites using the phrase, there isn't anything at length about this. Not meeting notability requirements. Oaktree b (talk) 18:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The French Wikipedia article has nine references. Left guide (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sokudo Electric

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

Promotional article from an SMM company using press releases, interviews, product and facility launches, and other announcements. ~~No coverage in reliable sources.~~ No coverage in independent reliable sources, fails GNG. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Products, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hi, these coverages are all reliable, they are posted on reliable media sources like news medias, print magazines. please feel free to check all the links before making a decision. Pitchonepr SMM (talk) 07:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

at the very least Delete the sections of the article that are just listing products, but the article as a whole reads somewhat promotional. Gaismagorm (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I cannot evaluate the reliability of most of the sources used in the article but some of them sources that look alright, like Rest of World and News18. The topic of the article seems notable. Jeraxmoira, are you saying that all of the sources are unreliable? Can you explain why you think so? Needless to say all the promotional fluff that is not supported by sources or is supported only by the company's press releases should be removed. Alaexis_¿question? 22:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the proper process for dealing with the WP:COI has not been followed by Pitchonepr SMM, I urge them to disclose their conflict of interest immediately (full disclosure, I came here because asked me a question at my talk page). Alaexis_¿question? 22:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alaexis, the Rest of World article is an interview and the News18 article is a press release. They do not pass the WP:SIRS check that is conducted for articles about organizations and companies. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 04:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeraxmoira, yeah, you're right about these two sources. And what about this piece? It seems to address the subject directly and in depth. Alaexis_¿question? 22:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very good source with a byline and it also seems to be a magazine feature. But, I wouldn’t be okay with it, as it’s an interview that would fail the WP:SIRS check. i.e., it is not completely independent of the article subject. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources are mainly WP:CHURNALISM, WP:NEWSORGINDIA, routine announcements, or press releases. I originally saw the News18 reference as meeting WP:ORGCRIT, but based on the search link provided by Jeraxmoira, I see that it is also churnalism (similar to how TechCrunch does a lot of stories). --CNMall41 (talk) 20:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TeleZapper

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

Unsourced article and has been tagged as such since 2011. Very little information to be found, one review but mostly just adverts. Nthep (talk) 22:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Technology. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although the article doesn't have any sourcing to speak of, that's because it's very old. I'm coming in at a Keep after finding some hits for this in books and magazines on a Google Books search. Andre🚐 01:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. The Wall Street Journal wrote about it. Here's another news source attributed to "AP Technology Writer" and also published here. I'm not sure about the usability of the rest of these, but in case they're useful, it's Mentioned in this book, andthis one and this one. It was discussed in a congressional committee hearing and a book on marketting refrom. It's listed in this index. McYeee (talk) 19:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then please add the sources to the article. Most of those you have listed are paywalled or geo-locked to me, so I can't read them to add them. Nthep (talk) 14:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nthep: You can use Archive for that. GrabUp - Talk 15:54, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
most of them aren't archived. Nthep (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete still no refs in article. MisawaSakura (talk) 13:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NEXISTS, this is not a valid deletion rational. McYeee (talk) 00:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Reference added. Interesting and relevant bit of tech from the telephone age. Lexlex (talk) 21:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet. Looking for more opinions grounded in policy and review of sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Products Proposed deletions