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 --
Malcolmxl5 (
talk) 00:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Unreferenced does not fail
WP:GNG. Notability is independent of article content.
Thisisnotatest (
talk) 00:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment (nom)
User:Thisisnotatest Read literally I would agree with you. "no sources" and a quick look for some didn't find much failing
WP:GNG, and crucially failing
WP:CORPDEPTH is my actual
WP:BEFORE (plus I couldn't assess the sources you found). Above was shorthand. The three sources aren't significant coverage - seems run of the mill to me. Although the letter of
WP:ILLCON is not applicable, the spirit may disregard 2/3 of the current sources. There's just not much coverage. (combined with now disclosed creator's COI
User:Kbigdawg1) Widefox;
talk 15:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Weak delete. No significant coverage. However, there are several passing mentions of the company (
[1],
[2],
[3],
[4]).
APerson (
talk!) 19:38, 26 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete No non-trivial coverage; just another small business. OhNoitsJamieTalk 22:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Get rid of it, as it's obviously not notable. I hesitate to recommend deletion, however, as this is potentially a decent alternate name for a coin-operated machine, and
that title is a redirect to
Vending machine. So either delete or redirect.
Nyttend (
talk) 23:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Thank you. Because our page titles are case-sensitive, the existence of a differently-capitalised title is not a reason to delete this one: it's just an additional reason for redirecting this one to the same target.
Nyttend (
talk) 13:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Nyttend Why?
WP:DIFFCAPS doesn't apply as there's not two articles needing disambiguation. I've created the lowercase plural
Coin acceptors ->
Currency detector.
WP:OTHERNAMES is no as well... "it is not necessary to create redirects from alternative capitalizations unless these are likely to be used in links". I personally don't like wrong caps, so I'd prefer delete anyhow. Widefox;
talk 15:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Your ping didn't work; I've come back because I was curious how the discussion was going, not because I got a notification. There's a big difference between "not necessary to do X" and "necessary not to do X", and a big difference between creating something new and retaining something that already exists. Titles being case-sensitive, someone who goes to
Coin Acceptors, i.e.
/info/en/?search=Coin_Acceptors, will assume that we don't have anything on the subject: there's no good reason to get rid of this unambiguous and not-particularly-unlikely title, rather than retaining it as a redirect, when we're retaining a version that's better capitalised. This is a fine example of {{R from other capitalisation}}. Final note: as the page was getting
several views each day before it was brought here, before there was a capitalisation variant with the same title, we have even less reason to trash it. Better to retain the history, and better to cause somewhat less confusion, than to delete it entirely.
Nyttend (
talk) 20:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Nyttend (this one should work, as it's not re-edited) agree with that logic, and your valid point catalysed my lowercase creation instead and a hatnote at
Coin Acceptors (pending deletion). After the former, it seems moot per OTHERNAMES - the redirect needs creating, it's never been in use and there's no need to use the uppercase in a link per OTHERNAMES. The search interface will switch to the lowercase for the historical use case of the uppercase (that until now was badly served without a hatnote), so that's moot too. The only confusion I envisage, is the search interface currently prompting for the uppercase which is a real company name (a minor point as it seems not notable). Caveat my view may be quite personal (redirects being cheap). Widefox;
talk 01:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)reply
You fail to observe that I'm not talking about the search interface. Remember that not everyone goes to pages with the search box: it would be appreciated if you didn't totally ignore people who would go to
/info/en/?search=Coin_Acceptors, as I already said, rather than
Special:Search/Coin_Acceptors. See
WP:RKEEP point #5.
Nyttend (
talk) 03:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)reply
After replying I did realise, thanks, and in case I'd missed some important incoming links I quickly checked, but seemed so unimportant I didn't follow-up. So after covering most of the use cases, we're left with those people of the world with this bookmarked? If correct, this seems to me increasingly niche and offtopic.
Wikipedia:Redirect/Deletion reasons is for redirects. This has never been a redirect. The top says "AfD" not "RfD". (these two articles also have only themselves as INT links, they're COI spam) Widefox;
talk 04:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep, the subject is notable. I have added notable references, although
WP:GNG does not require that references be present in the article to establish notability.
Thisisnotatest (
talk) 00:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Those fall short (per my nom, which clarifies that it wasn't just in the article). Stating it's notable without providing significant sources to evaluate against guideline when challenged just isn't persuasive. Widefox;
talk 23:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)reply
You need to find secondary sources; news reports about events that just happened are primary sources.
Nyttend (
talk) 13:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete in any case as the current sources are simply not enough to suggest a better solid article.
SwisterTwistertalk 08:01, 28 December 2015 (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 --
Malcolmxl5 (
talk) 00:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Unreferenced does not fail
WP:GNG. Notability is independent of article content.
Thisisnotatest (
talk) 00:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment (nom)
User:Thisisnotatest Read literally I would agree with you. "no sources" and a quick look for some didn't find much failing
WP:GNG, and crucially failing
WP:CORPDEPTH is my actual
WP:BEFORE (plus I couldn't assess the sources you found). Above was shorthand. The three sources aren't significant coverage - seems run of the mill to me. Although the letter of
WP:ILLCON is not applicable, the spirit may disregard 2/3 of the current sources. There's just not much coverage. (combined with now disclosed creator's COI
User:Kbigdawg1) Widefox;
talk 15:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Weak delete. No significant coverage. However, there are several passing mentions of the company (
[1],
[2],
[3],
[4]).
APerson (
talk!) 19:38, 26 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete No non-trivial coverage; just another small business. OhNoitsJamieTalk 22:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Get rid of it, as it's obviously not notable. I hesitate to recommend deletion, however, as this is potentially a decent alternate name for a coin-operated machine, and
that title is a redirect to
Vending machine. So either delete or redirect.
Nyttend (
talk) 23:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Thank you. Because our page titles are case-sensitive, the existence of a differently-capitalised title is not a reason to delete this one: it's just an additional reason for redirecting this one to the same target.
Nyttend (
talk) 13:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Nyttend Why?
WP:DIFFCAPS doesn't apply as there's not two articles needing disambiguation. I've created the lowercase plural
Coin acceptors ->
Currency detector.
WP:OTHERNAMES is no as well... "it is not necessary to create redirects from alternative capitalizations unless these are likely to be used in links". I personally don't like wrong caps, so I'd prefer delete anyhow. Widefox;
talk 15:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Your ping didn't work; I've come back because I was curious how the discussion was going, not because I got a notification. There's a big difference between "not necessary to do X" and "necessary not to do X", and a big difference between creating something new and retaining something that already exists. Titles being case-sensitive, someone who goes to
Coin Acceptors, i.e.
/info/en/?search=Coin_Acceptors, will assume that we don't have anything on the subject: there's no good reason to get rid of this unambiguous and not-particularly-unlikely title, rather than retaining it as a redirect, when we're retaining a version that's better capitalised. This is a fine example of {{R from other capitalisation}}. Final note: as the page was getting
several views each day before it was brought here, before there was a capitalisation variant with the same title, we have even less reason to trash it. Better to retain the history, and better to cause somewhat less confusion, than to delete it entirely.
Nyttend (
talk) 20:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Nyttend (this one should work, as it's not re-edited) agree with that logic, and your valid point catalysed my lowercase creation instead and a hatnote at
Coin Acceptors (pending deletion). After the former, it seems moot per OTHERNAMES - the redirect needs creating, it's never been in use and there's no need to use the uppercase in a link per OTHERNAMES. The search interface will switch to the lowercase for the historical use case of the uppercase (that until now was badly served without a hatnote), so that's moot too. The only confusion I envisage, is the search interface currently prompting for the uppercase which is a real company name (a minor point as it seems not notable). Caveat my view may be quite personal (redirects being cheap). Widefox;
talk 01:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)reply
You fail to observe that I'm not talking about the search interface. Remember that not everyone goes to pages with the search box: it would be appreciated if you didn't totally ignore people who would go to
/info/en/?search=Coin_Acceptors, as I already said, rather than
Special:Search/Coin_Acceptors. See
WP:RKEEP point #5.
Nyttend (
talk) 03:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)reply
After replying I did realise, thanks, and in case I'd missed some important incoming links I quickly checked, but seemed so unimportant I didn't follow-up. So after covering most of the use cases, we're left with those people of the world with this bookmarked? If correct, this seems to me increasingly niche and offtopic.
Wikipedia:Redirect/Deletion reasons is for redirects. This has never been a redirect. The top says "AfD" not "RfD". (these two articles also have only themselves as INT links, they're COI spam) Widefox;
talk 04:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep, the subject is notable. I have added notable references, although
WP:GNG does not require that references be present in the article to establish notability.
Thisisnotatest (
talk) 00:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Those fall short (per my nom, which clarifies that it wasn't just in the article). Stating it's notable without providing significant sources to evaluate against guideline when challenged just isn't persuasive. Widefox;
talk 23:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)reply
You need to find secondary sources; news reports about events that just happened are primary sources.
Nyttend (
talk) 13:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete in any case as the current sources are simply not enough to suggest a better solid article.
SwisterTwistertalk 08:01, 28 December 2015 (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.