Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CPS 2000
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 merge to Super Soaker#CPS (Constant Pressure System). (non-admin closure) czar · · 05:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- CPS 2000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Water gun fancruft that lacks coverage in reliable sources. Its scant sourcing consists entirely of water gun fan sites. BDD (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 05:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Super Soaker#CPS (Constant Pressure System), less the unsourced statements like "most powerful stock water blaster sold in stores," which while believable (I've gotten hit by one of these suckers), need to be independently verified. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 19:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not delete I consider the page as useful and informational and used it several times. I would prefer this page not to be deleted. And fan sites probably are the most reliable sources available on this subject because there are no commercial interests to write about water guns that are no longer being sold. Hyper.nl (talk) 11:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Usefulness doesn't have anything to do with our notability criteria, so it's not a very good reason to keep. And if fan sites are the most reliable sources available on a subject, that's a good indicate that the subject doesn't meet WP:GNG. --BDD (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2013 (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.