Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Products

Note: In some cases there is another, more specific category than this one. If possible, please use one of these instead:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Albums and songs (e.g. CDs and singles)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Anime and manga (e.g. comic books, DVDs)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Comics and animation (same as above)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Companies
Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Games (e.g. board games)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature (e.g. books)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Software
Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Transportation (e.g. cars)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games

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:

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.
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.

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 other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Products. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

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:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Products/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Products

Miessence

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged as COI for 15 years. Wikipedia is not a permanent webhost for COI content. BD2412 T 01:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 01:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I couldn't find any significant coverage which addresses the product line directly and in depth in mutiple reliable sources. TarnishedPath^talk 07:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Solid surface

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article which is a WP:OR and WP:SYNTH combination of several products under a non-existent name. Nothing notable that is not already in the companies products. No coverage of the name since the usage here is completely inappropriate -- there is a standard definition of what a "Solid surface" is. Almost everything is unsourced WP:OR. Since Espresso Addict opposed a PROD arguing that there was useful content, nominated for AfD. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Science. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Solid surface" seems to be used for a "synthetic countertop material that contains both minerals and resins" ... "33-percent binding resins and 66-percent minerals. Those minerals are a bauxite derivative, aluminum trihydrate (ATH)".[1] (a selling site). Will try to find some more-respectable sources. The article should state upfront that it applies to the synthetic material and that the physics usage is covered in surface (though actually I see it isn't really). It might be a good idea to move this to a title with a disambiguator and make "solid surface" into a dab. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many hits in Ebsco (3,260 for '"solid surface" countertop'), some of which call the material "solid surface composite" which might be a good article title; a few of the top are: W Kyle Mandler, Chaolong Qi, Yong Qian. Hazardous dusts from the fabrication of countertop: a review. Archives of Environmental & Occupational Health. Jul2022, p1-9 [2] "Both SSC and ES consist of a mineral substrate bound together in a polymer matrix. For SSC the mineral is about 70% aluminum trihydrate (ATH)"; Counter Points. By: Van Vlear, Victoria, American Farmhouse Style, 26415380, Feb/Mar2024, Vol. 9, Issue 1; Solid Surface International Expo 2005, SolidSurface Magazine. May/Jun2005, Vol. 11 Issue 3, p40-46; Webster, Mark. Seamless Solid Surface Sinks. Surface Fabrication. Mar2008, Vol. 14 Issue 3, p26-29; Dulley, James. Replace your old countertops with solid surface ones. Farm & Dairy. 10/4/2018, Vol. 105 Issue 3, p15; Spaulding, Harry. Counter vision. Residential Design & Build. Feb/Mar2007, Vol. 72 Issue 2, p44-49; Windmeier, Patrick. Understanding The Cause Of Solid Surface Countertop Failure Part I: Front Edge Cracks. Surface Fabrication. Oct2008, Vol. 14 Issue 10, p22-23; The latest in countertop trends. Wood Digest. Mar2006, Vol. 37 Issue 3, p34; and many more. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A solid surface is literally that, the surface of a solid. It is an important topic in surface science, physics, chemistry, materials science, catalysis and a few others. There are millions of academic papers and quite a few Nobel prizes with a history of many centuries. The latest was Ertl in 2007
for his studies of chemical processes on solid surfaces

If you want to defend it then please do a ~~redirect~~merge to some innocuous name such as Countertop, rather than suggesting that centuries of science should be ignored because someone decided to hack an established name. (Countertop is more comprehensive than this, but also appalling devoid of sources.) Ldm1954 (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, lots of words/phrases have more than one meaning, and as I wrote above, I am entirely happy with moving this off the top level to allow a disambiguation page or a primary page on the phys/chem topic (which I don't think currently exists?). Bear in mind that while many of the editors who patrol AfD deletion lists in science/academia topics are actually current or former scientists, I fear the average reader might genuinely be more interested in what material to get their kitchen/bathroom countertops made out of than in the physics/chemistry meaning. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The appropriate page exists, surface science. Also, please note that it is science, not just physical sciences or just physics/chemistry. For instance cell adhesion to solid surfaces is an important topic where there has been extensive work. The normal use of the term is everywhere, just for fun try this. Abnormal use is just that, and has no place on WP IMHO. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328: for an expert view on the term as a synthetic material; perhaps he will be able to suggest a better move/merge target. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:33, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but possibly rename to "Solid surface material" or "Solid surface product". I have refrained from editing this article for many years because I have a deep conflict of interest. I have derived a large majority of my income for over 40 years from selling, fabricating, installing, repairing and modifying solid surface countertops and related items such as table tops, desk tops, retail service counters and tub and shower walls. So, I have paid the mortgages on two homes and bought a third for cash, raised two sons from birth to age 40 and age 35, traveled extensively and lived a pretty good middle class life due to this product. I was active in a trade group called the "International Solid Surface Fabricator's Association" for quite a few years. One of my sons is keeping my business going as I transition toward retirement, which is a source of great pride to me. "Solid surface material" or "solid surface product" is the generic term accepted in the construction industry of the English speaking world for a variety of competing commercial products that includes international brands such as DuPont Corian, Avonite, Fountainhead (defunct), HiMacs, Staron, and countless regional brands. The current lead section is largely accurate. The rest of the article is of varying quality ranging from OK to mediocre to terrible. The referencing is really poor. But AfD is not cleanup and I am absolutely certain that this topic is notable and that Wikipedia should have an article about it. As for the idea of merging/redirecting to Countertop, that would be like merging/redirecting German shepherd or Boston terrier or Poodle to Dog. There are many materials used for countertops, and we should have articles about each one of them that is notable. This is a discrete and notable topic. Cullen328 (talk) 03:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Solid surface product" is Ok, with "Solid surface" redirected to Surface science. However, I prefer WP:TNT. I just checked some of the sources and they have no bearing on the claims they are trying to justify. I think we are doing a disservice to WP by having articles full of unverified claims and unreliable sources. Without a reasonably sourced article notability is certainly not demonstrated. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be specific about some of the OR/SYNTH here:
To verify a claim that the same tools as used by wood can be used, a paper on the hardness of surface treated wood is quoted.

To verify a claim that additives such as crushed optical fibers can be used, a paper on a hydration process is quoted.
N.B., Countertop remains a strong merge candidate as it is quoted as the main use multiple times. However that page is equally bad in sourcing. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. The topic is notable. That is what matters most. Cullen328 (talk) 08:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but there is no evidence of notability. As you know, your statement as an expert does not make it notable, WP:Burden. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Espresso Addict provided plenty of evidence of notability. Cullen328 (talk) 17:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note Here is a list of 24 books that provide significant coverage to solid surface materials:

This should establish notability and allow any editor without a conflict of interest to improve the article. Cullen328 (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that WP:Deletion is not cleanup is an essay. WP:BURDEN is policy. If you are voting Keep then I would say the burden is on you (and/or @Espresso Addict). I am somewhat gentle in my approach compared to some editors I know who just delete, delete, delete. Realistically, if all unsourced statements were deleted there would be nothing left beyond the lead (as that does not need sources).

So long as you are WP:NPOV, declare the COI and describe your competitors more than your company I see no reason why you cannot at least add sources. Alternatively or as well you can use WP:Edit requests. I would be happy to add those, and I suspect that @Espresso Addict would also. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ldm1954, for fifteen years, I have been exceedingly careful to avoid violating WP:COI. I have an obvious and massive and glaring financial conflict of interest about this topic. You are asking me to violate the COI policy and I will not do it. I have provided a list of 24 books that provide significant coverage of this notable topic. I think that is enough. In my view, you should withdraw this nomination and improve the article based on some of the sources that I have furnished. Cullen328 (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have reconsidered and will post some proposed content on the article talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC

I have posted some proposed content which I believe is neutrally written and well-referenced at Talk: Solid surface. I encourage Ldm1954 or Espresso Addict to remove the unreferenced and poorly referenced content and replace it with the content I have drafted. I support moving the page to Solid surface material. Cullen328 (talk) 01:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft suggestion is a great deal better than the current article. I have left some comments on the talk page. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While WP:Deletion is not cleanup is an essay, our deletion policy is relatively clear on the broader point. Per WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Per WP:BEFORE, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." If you feel the topic is notable but the current content is unsalvageable, you can for example boldy reduce the article to a stub (after the AFD). I feel that WP:BURDEN is primarily associated with verifiability of content within an article, but the relevant question here is whether the article topic is notable. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 02:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of online language tutoring platforms

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:NLIST. The one cited source discussing a group is about language learning apps in general, not "language tutoring platforms" specifically. – Joe (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Products, and Lists. – Joe (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is a non-trivial difference between "language tutoring platforms" and "language learning apps" like Duolingo or Babbel, which are listed at List of language self-study programs. But there isn't sourcing to suggest that Wikipedia needs a separate lists. I'm not sure if I prefer some form of merge (or a redirect to a category), but it should not be kept as-is. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The topic of online language learning does have WP:RS, but the actual platforms that are racking up hundreds of thousands of end-user hours and tens of thousands of tutors seems to be harder to source, though the sites and their userbase evidently exist.GobsPint (talk) 04:51, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Products Proposed deletions