Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cisco 7600
Source: 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 WP:N with respect to the subject being the focus of the article, and how in depth the coverage is, the principle of not just parroting Cisco wholesale cannot be abandoned. WilyD 12:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cisco 7600
Contested prod of an article written like a spec sheet or ad with no reliable sources. Having difficulty finding support for GNG claim Nouniquenames 04:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Many other articles about Cisco products appear to have similar issues. -—Kvng 16:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep & merge to an article about this product line, but keep the basic . Anyone urging an outright delete, should explain why a merge isn't suitable, because according to WP:Deletion Policy, merges are preferred to deletions. In any case, WP should contain an article about every major product line from a major company, though not a full article about every individual project. Some earlier merges of similar products reduced the content to a single line giving the name of the product in the main article. Those are destructive merge, and all such sections need to be expanded. A single article about such a company and all its products is absurd undercoverage DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If reliable sources don't exist, deletion, not merging, would be the most logical outcome. "Destructive merging" would be the next logical step. --Nouniquenames 11:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The company's own source is reliable for routine description of uncontroversial features of a product. Usually, in fact, it's the best source for standards features. Obviously a third party source is needed for judgements, such as "this is a major development in the field", but the article has none of these. But for description, this is especially true for a company producing materials for a technical market--they normally have no need to hype their products, for their potential customers know enough to tell. Therefore in general the specification sheets and similar technical information is reliable, not just for the product, but sometimes for the industry in general. DGG ( talk ) 15:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the proposed merge destination? -—Kvng 16:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If reliable sources don't exist, deletion, not merging, would be the most logical outcome. "Destructive merging" would be the next logical step. --Nouniquenames 11:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, ey 00:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect into parent article and merge any unique content. As someone may use the search term an the parent is obviously notable and has a great variety of products, this is the logical solution. Redirects are also cheap. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the parent article? -—Kvng 16:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Should I assume this is a rhetorical question? Either the parent company or per DGG's idea of creating an article to house all the products, as it is arguable that the product line is notable even if each individual product isn't. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No it's not rhetorical. Perhaps I did not read the discussion here carefully enough but when someone proposes a merge I expect to see a wikilink. ]
- Perhaps I wasn't clear, which would be my fault: either redirect somewhere, or follow DGGs advice, but I wouldn't leave it as a stand alone article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No it's not rhetorical. Perhaps I did not read the discussion here carefully enough but when someone proposes a merge I expect to see a wikilink. ]
- Should I assume this is a rhetorical question? Either the parent company or per DGG's idea of creating an article to house all the products, as it is arguable that the product line is notable even if each individual product isn't. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the parent article? -—Kvng 16:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ]
- Keep I don't see a good case for delete or merge. We need to keep until there is consensus to delete. I know it is bad form not to make a case for keep and I apologize that I don't have time to do that now. -—Kvng 04:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A quick look at Google Scholar reveals many references to this. WP:BEFORE nominating for AfD you should do some thorough research. AfD is not a replacement for editing nor should it be used to force people to improve an article. Mike (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Google Scholar references lots of things that don't establish WP:LOTSOFSOURCES isn't relevant, we need to know what these sources are and why they establish notability reliably. -Rushyo Talk 18:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Before nominating, I found only things that don't count as sources. ]
- Comment Google Scholar references lots of things that don't establish
- Delete The article does not even assert notability. Hekerui (talk) 21:22, 28 December 2012 (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.