From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Illy. Liz Read! Talk! 17:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

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

WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:NOTCATALOG - Not a single source found from a BEFORE BrigadierG ( talk) 01:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:05, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please voice your opinion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect to Illy seems to be appropriate as per above Pranesh Ravikumar ( talk) 02:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Illy. It's a high threshold for a product to warrant its own article, which is not, in my opinion, met in this instance. There is nothing lost by having a redirect to the company page, which is certainly notable. If the product has sufficient discussion in secondary sources, a small sentence would be fine on that page. However, there is nothing of significance I can see regarding this particular machine that makes a merge vote worthwhile or practicable. The contents are largely not worth copying over. — MaxnaCarta  (  💬 •  📝 ) 02:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Illy, for the reasons given above. The article as it stands needs a citation needed on almost every line, as it is full of unsupported statements. As for the "Interesting facts" section, interesting for whom? Athel cb ( talk) 08:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Illy as per ATD, totally agree with the reasons provided above. The references are insufficient for GNG/NCORP criteria in any case. HighKing ++ 12:19, 5 September 2023 (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.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Illy. Liz Read! Talk! 17:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

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

WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:NOTCATALOG - Not a single source found from a BEFORE BrigadierG ( talk) 01:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:05, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please voice your opinion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect to Illy seems to be appropriate as per above Pranesh Ravikumar ( talk) 02:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Illy. It's a high threshold for a product to warrant its own article, which is not, in my opinion, met in this instance. There is nothing lost by having a redirect to the company page, which is certainly notable. If the product has sufficient discussion in secondary sources, a small sentence would be fine on that page. However, there is nothing of significance I can see regarding this particular machine that makes a merge vote worthwhile or practicable. The contents are largely not worth copying over. — MaxnaCarta  (  💬 •  📝 ) 02:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Illy, for the reasons given above. The article as it stands needs a citation needed on almost every line, as it is full of unsupported statements. As for the "Interesting facts" section, interesting for whom? Athel cb ( talk) 08:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Illy as per ATD, totally agree with the reasons provided above. The references are insufficient for GNG/NCORP criteria in any case. HighKing ++ 12:19, 5 September 2023 (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.

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook