Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Products

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

Imperial margarine

Imperial margarine (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 · NYT · TWL)

Article is short and has references to YouTube and retailer sites, which aren't reliable. AKK700 05:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fender Stringmaster

Fender Stringmaster (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 · NYT · TWL)

Non-notable commercial product. Not much change in the 13 years since the previous nomination -- just the addition of original research material. Essentially unreferenced. Pretty eays to find trivial review coverage, but that doesn't satisfy the "significant" part of WP:GNG. -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stagemaster

Stagemaster (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 · NYT · TWL)

Non-notable product. Essentially unreferenced here, lots of collector how-to information about identification as original research. All I'm finding are bite-size reviews that don't meet the "significant" part of WP:GNG. Mikeblas (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fender Urge Bass

Fender Urge Bass (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 · NYT · TWL)

Non-notable product. No references given, and the only references available seem to be superficial capsule reviews that don't satisfy the "in-depth" part of WP:GNG. Mikeblas (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fender Coronado

Fender Coronado (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 · NYT · TWL)

Non-notable commercial product. Completely unreferenced, except for the list of people who use this model. One reference is a link to a Wikipedia Commons picture with no further infomration. It's not hard to find brief reviews of this product, but those don't satisfyt the "substantial" part of WP:GNG and even longer reviews aren't in-depth coverage. Mikeblas (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Keep Meets WP:GNG. Significant coverage in independent sources is available.
  1. Roberts, Jim (October 1999). "The Coronado cult". Bass Player. 10 (11): 88.

    Excerpt: "Ah, the Coronado. One of Fender's most maligned-and perhaps most misunderstood-models. A product of the notorious late-'60s period when the new CBS management was doing its best to demolish Fender's reputation, the Coronado Bass is usually seen as little more than a "Frankenstein" axe that joined a bolt-on, long-scale Fender bass neck (with four-in-line headstock) to the semi-hollow body of a Gibson thinline guitar. Sonically, it had neither the punch of a solidbody Fender nor the muddy thump of a Gibson EB-2. It was, as the saying goes, neither here nor there. Dig a little deeper, though, and you'll find the Coronado Bass has quite an interesting history. The Coronado line (both basses and guitars) was created by Roger Rossmeisl, the German expatriate luthier who had designed the Rickenbacker 4000, the first neck-through electric bass. [Perspective, March '99.] Rossmeisl had been working for Fender since 1962, mostly on acoustic guitars, and it must have seemed logical to the CBS masterminds to have him whip up an acoustic-electric hybridespecially since that was one of Gibson's strongest market areas. The Coronados were introduced with suitable fanfare in 1966. The first bass offered was the single-pickup Bass I; the double-pickup Bass II followed a year later. Unfortunately, one pickup or two, the design didn't quite work. Even when Fender cooked up the psychedelic "Wildwood" Coronados-with bodies made from beechwood that had been colored by injecting dye into the growing trees-musicians reacted with a yawn. As former Fender executive Don Randall once noted, "They were beautiful guitars, but they never went anyplace. Never caught on." The series died with a whimper in 1972, and it has never inspired much interest from vintage enthusiasts."

  2. Bacon, Tony (2010). 60 Years of Fender: Six Decades of the Greatest Electric Guitars. Hal Leonard Corporation. ISBN 978-0-87930-966-4.

    Excerpt: "The Coronados looked like conventional competitors for the Gibson models, with equal-double-cutaway bound bodies that sported large, stylized f-holes. But in fact, just like the earlier flat-tops, they employed the standard Fender bolt-on necks, as well as the company's distinctive headstock design. Options included a new vibrato tailpiece, and there was a 12-string version that used the Electric XII's large curved headstock design. Unfamiliar with some edge-binding techniques, factory hands had to re-do some of the work. To cover up burn marks caused by re-binding, the team devised a special white-to-brown shaded finish — Antigua — to salvage the scorched Coronados. Antigua-finish Coronados would go on sale over the next few years."

  3. 1001 guitars to dream of playing before you die. New York : Universe. 2013. p. 359. ISBN 978-0-7893-2701-7.

    Excerpt: "After fifteen years of producing solidbody guitars, Leo Fender had decided the time was right to offer an uncharacteristic thinline hollow body electric guitar. As the man who had designed all of Rickenbacker's classic hollow body models, Rossmeisl was the man for the job. The back and sides of the Coronado were constructed from laminated beechwood, and featured a gently arched maple top—again, unusual for Fender. A further departure was in the use of nonstandard Fender pick-ups; the Coronado was fitted with single-coil DeArmonds. The Coronado was produced between 1966 and 1972. The model shown features a "Wildwood" finish, a dubious-sounding process that involved injecting a chemical dye into the growing beech tree prior to harvesting. This resulted in an unusual stained grain pattern of the wood, a thin laminate of which was then used on the top of the body."

Jfire (talk) 03:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chee.Toz

Chee.Toz (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 · NYT · TWL)

Iranian bootleg Cheetos brand with very little coverage. I found a paragraph about this brand, but outside of that, I couldn't find anything reliable. Waddles 🗩 🖉 17:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Remove - Pretty much zero coverage, and the article tone seems a bit like an advertisement to me. "They have been compared to Cheetos, but with fewer preservatives." really? according to who? Additionally, the only reference appears to be a grocery store listing. ✯✬✩InterestGather (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete. No notability at all. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete - No notability, the only reference doesn't seem to work either. ULPS (talk) 17:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of products manufactured by Fender Musical Instruments Corporation

List of products manufactured by Fender Musical Instruments Corporation (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 · NYT · TWL)

Per WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTCATALOG. WP:LSC says Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence and this list is just a compilation of things that exist (from a commerical company). Terrible referencing -- single source, plus one other reference. Lots of red-links, many non-links. No particular inclusion criteria if we consider a given instrument or model and all the different variants, sub-models, special editions, marketing changes, ... to be included. Or not? Mikeblas (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The sole source cited in the article could be linked to in Fender_(company)#External_links, and perhaps Category:Fender Musical Instruments Corporation products is a warranted category? Mooonswimmer 00:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Products, and Lists. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep While we already have a Category:Fender Musical Instruments Corporation, the existence of a category is never a valid reason to delete a list article. A list article is far more useful than a category since it can contain more useful information. Anything that does not have its own article should be deleted from the list. There are plenty of blue links though. Dream Focus 00:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep: Fender products do meet WP:NLIST and User:Dream Focus has already trimmed the non-notable entries. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete: Per Nom. Also, Fails notability criteria among other things. From the one-line lead, "This is a list of products made by Fender Musical Instruments Corporation which have their own Wikipedia articles, that is false, to the 32 instances of the same source with just different page numbers, to failing WP:LISTN that reads, One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. There seems to be no hidden language. -- Otr500 (talk) 03:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I added the part that says "which have their own Wikipedia articles". I removed most of the bad entries that didn't meet that requirement. Anyone can remove the rest. WP:NOTPERFECT applies here. Dream Focus 16:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Orgasmatron (massage device)

Orgasmatron (massage device) (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 · NYT · TWL)

Seems to not be notable and is essentially a product ad. Rp2006 (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We can't redirect an article to a blank page. We redirect an article page to another article. Liz Read! Talk! 06:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep Found enough coverage, even the WaPo post above of a competitor mentions it. I also have one of these, didn’t know this was its name! Equine-man (talk) 07:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Toyota C transmission

Toyota C transmission (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 · NYT · TWL)

This article seems like it ought to be an encyclopedic subject. Someone has gone through a lot of effort to fill in all the information.

However... this article is a pretty clear violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTGUIDE. The only citations are to manuals. An IP just edited in what I'm mostly sure is a joke, and now I'm trawling through this reference to find out if it is. I feel there is little short of applying some WP:TNT that can save this article. BrigadierG (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete this is like the motor oil or transmission fluid articles we had at AfD a while ago, nice collection of technical data, most of it from primary sourcing. Wiki isn't the Hayes manuals, nor should it try to be. No sources found, most of what is found is simply service bulletins and the like. Oaktree b (talk) 04:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep This is a list article (typical of many other transmission and engine list articles for most of the major manufacturers) and therefore WP:INDISCRIMINATE is not relevant. It doesn't try to teach/guide you how to fix the transmissions, therefore WP:NOTGUIDE is not relevant. However, it badly needs inline references to support its claims. If you think this needs to be deleted (rather than fixed) then you should also nominate every article in Category:Toyota transmissions, Category:Automobile transmissions, Category:Toyota engines and Category:Automobile engines.  Stepho  talk  10:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • WP:INDISCRIMINATE says data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. If that cannot be done, the list is an indiscriminate collection of information, and should be deleted. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • The word indiscriminate has connotations of randomness, uncohesiveness and lack of context. The article is extremely regular (lists transmissions and their ratios) and puts it in the context of which vehicles the transmissions are in. What it lacks is many references. So, it should be tagged with {{refimprove}} or similar to encourage editors to add references. The way forward is to add references - deletion of useful information would be a step backwards.  Stepho  talk  00:22, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Transportation, and Lists. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak delete unless there's a serious prospect for sourcing it - I'm sorry, but I feel this is one of those topics where you'd be better posting this information on your own website where you can present it yourself in your own words, talk about your credentials as an expert and explain your experience and expertise. That's a more realistic goal. With no sourcing, we have no way to verify that any of this stuff is true. If an IP makes a change replacing one unsourced statement with another, we have no idea who's right. Blythwood (talk) 09:17, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete - sorry but Wikipedia is not a repository for manuals, whether sourced, or, as here, not. It's not notable, not encyclopedic, and fails WP:NOTHOWTO. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • This is not a how-to article - there are no instructions to follow. Otherwise we would have to delete almost all of the engine and transmission pages for all car companies.  Stepho  talk  23:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Products Proposed deletions