- 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 Speedy Delete per WP:A7 by User:SarekOfVulcan --Gordonrox24 | Talk 17:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- PLATE-MATE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Contested prod. Article about a brand of kitchen racks. Its notability is not established, and the only attempt at inserting third-party reliable sources so far has been by producing catalogs of resellers. When I pointed out to the creator that resellers cannot be regarded as third parties in this case, he asked why we have an article on Tupperware. Delete unless actual third-party sources can be found. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. A7. No assertion of actual notability for the company. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; no indication of notability. Looks like spam. I42 (talk) 16:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per both above - non-notable spam. Matt Deres (talk) 14:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I take exception to being called a spammer. I would like an answer to my question regarding the article on Tupperware. I ask that the Tupperware article be deleted if my article is to be deleted.Standard84 (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your question was answered on the article's talk page. Comparison with another article is never an appropriate argument to use at AfD even if it does seem the comparison is appropriate. But in this case it is clear that Tupperware is a brand with obvious notability - whereas no evidence has so far been presented to demonstrate that PLATE-MATE is notable, and if its not notable the article will be deleted. If you feel Tupperware is non-notable (as you state on the talk page) then you would, of course, be entitled to nominate that article for deletion - but I advise you read WP:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point before considering doing so. I42 (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete:Per WP:G7--Gordonrox24 | Talk 16:52, 7 July 2009 (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.