Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BBS Wheel Library
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 delete. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BBS Wheel Library[edit]
- BBS Wheel Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Well beyond Wikipedia's scope, we're not a specialists guide to identifying BBS rims nor is a listing of every rim built by the company relevant to a general interest encyclopedia. Belongs on a specialist website. The359 (Talk) 18:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as Wikipedia is not a catalog for rims or a place for advertising for BBS. Armbrust Talk Contribs 20:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a product catalog. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article is here for informative purposes only, which is the whole idea of Wikipedia. BBS no longer produce 95+% of wheels listed and no prices are listed for wheels in production, so is not advertising. All in all the article is an extremely helpful resource. Hipwell (talk) 10:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As pointed out in WP:NOTCATALOG by Armburst, we are not a resource for consumer products, no matter how helpful some may find it. Simply being informative does not make it relevant to an encyclopedia. The359 (Talk) 10:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So all articles containing any information on consumer products need deleting? 100's perhaps 1000's of articles? Why are articles like this List of Canon products not deleted and kept when it comes to nomination for deletion? and sections like this.. Canon lenses. Quote from the discussion page of the first.. "Encyclopedias are to learn facts and product lists are factual" What is different with this? Hipwell (talk) 13:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may be instructive, here - we're not looking at those articles, we're looking at this one. If you feel that those other articles do not meet our policies, you may wish to nominate them for deletion. But their existence doesn't impact the notability of this subject either way. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability , and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia." Merely saying that this article has the same concept as the List of Canon products, which is kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipwell (talk • contribs) 15:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd argue that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Canon products isn't a great precedent, since it is more than 5 years old, predates the AFD process entirely (it's a VFD that was later moved), and lacks a worthwhile deletion rationale. But citing previous AFDs as precedent is, in general, a fine way to make your point - it wasn't clear that that was your intent, though, which is my bad for not reading your point correctly. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would agree that List of Canon products should be nominated for deletion for the same rationale as this article, but that has no bearing on this discussion of the merits of BBS Wheel Library. The359 (Talk) 22:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability , and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia." Merely saying that this article has the same concept as the List of Canon products, which is kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipwell (talk • contribs) 15:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may be instructive, here - we're not looking at those articles, we're looking at this one. If you feel that those other articles do not meet our policies, you may wish to nominate them for deletion. But their existence doesn't impact the notability of this subject either way. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So all articles containing any information on consumer products need deleting? 100's perhaps 1000's of articles? Why are articles like this List of Canon products not deleted and kept when it comes to nomination for deletion? and sections like this.. Canon lenses. Quote from the discussion page of the first.. "Encyclopedias are to learn facts and product lists are factual" What is different with this? Hipwell (talk) 13:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I don't believe this has advertising value, but the informative value is limited; knowing the particular model numbers for rims on a certain model of car isn't that useful of a piece of information to have. If you're searching for a particular model, this list is great - but that's not our purpose here. A discussion, in prose, on the company's article, that touched on some of these models (maybe highlighting popular, unusual, or top selling models) might be worthwhile - but this list is a bit overboard for that purpose. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:41, 15 September 2010 (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.