Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australia standard pallets


 * 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 keep. A name change was suggested; no action taken on that. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Australia standard pallets

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Whole article is seemingly based verbatim from the first source since 2004; though I can't assertain if possible the source has been updated since that time to integrate data from WP... → Aza Toth 17:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

*Delete: Not independently notable and already has a home as described by Hydronium Hydroxide above. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: Article adds nothing useful to what is already at Pallet. Relevant standard is "AS:4068-1993".  undefinedHydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)  11:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * notice though that the text in Pallet contains the same text as the article (manual copy paste from rendered), which seems to be a double copyright violation. → Aza Toth 07:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Which parts of the page(s) do you identify as potentially plagiarised, and from where? The first 2004 version of the Australian Standard Pallets page read:
 * Australia Standard Pallets are square hardwood pallets which are standard in Australia and non-standard anywhere else in the world. They are 1165mm by 1165 mm in size and fit perfectly in the RACE (container) of the Australian railways. They are ill suited for the standard 20 foot and 40 foot ISO Containers used around the globe.
 * Note that Omega uses the more-recently introduced incorrect "[1]", and Harders includes both the original first sentence and the "Racking" sentence but not the intervening sentence, so it's not clear to me in which direction there's been copying (it's also possible that perhaps the one editor wrote copy for both wikipedia and website...) undefinedHydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)  08:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect to Pallet as a plausible search term. IF we suspect this article stems from a copyvio, then delete first before redirecting.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC).

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Onel 5969  TT me 13:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article has encyclopaedic content and a long edit history going back to 2004. As text has been pasted in to the Pallet article (originally in this 2007 edit) it now must not be deleted as the history must be preserved for licensing reasons (unless there is also a massive rev delete of the Pallet article).  I was about to close this as a procedural keep myself for that reason, but I also think there is a case for keeping on notability grounds and intend to expand the article, so that would make me involved and not an independent closer.  Whether or not this does end up as a redirect/merge is not really best decided at AfD in any case.
 * I do not believe that this article is a copyvio. Reasons for thinking that are very flimsy and there is strong evidence that copying is in the other direction.  The Wikipedia article was created in December 2004, but the earliest capture of the Pace web page is May 2013.  Nothing on any page of the Pace site was captured prior to 2007, so it is quite possible our article even predates the formation of the company.  The first version of our article has the first two paragraphs run together, the Pace page has them separated.  The separation in our article happened on 1May 2007, just predating the first capture of Pace, again indicating that they copied from us.  The Pace page has the word "non-reversabe" inserted in the first sentence.  This word does not appear in any version of our article and it is quite unlikely that a copier would have bothered to remove this word, or even have a reason for doing so.
 * On notability this report from the World Bank discusses the cost and benefits of Australia converting its standard pallet. Australian Transport contains an article on Australian standard pallets and also discusses converting to ISO.  Practical Handbook of Warehousing mentions that Australia was one of the first to have a standard pallet.  Metrication, the Australian Experience discusses the relevance of ASP to metrication (astonishingly concluding that it was needed for metric packaging].  I've only just started looking, gbooks is showing hundreds more results for the search term, so I don't see how the claim this is not independently notable was arrived at. SpinningSpark 15:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree that deletion as non-notable is inappropriate, and copyvio has more than reasonable doubt (mine was a WP:REDUNDANT argument -- the reverse-fork/incomplete-merge is a bit odd). Although a redirect would maintain edit history, given User:Spinningspark's intent to expand the article change vote to Keep (but rename to Australian standard pallet). undefinedHydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)  09:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I too thought it was a question of redundancy. I also change to keep and thank for the research work. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Aeonx (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.