Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coin Acceptors


 * 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Coin Acceptors

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unreferenced fails WP:GNG,. User:Thisisnotatest do the sources pass WP:NOTNEWS / WP:CORPDEPTH ? Widefox ; talk 19:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Unreferenced does not fail WP:GNG. Notability is independent of article content. Thisisnotatest (talk) 00:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment (nom) User:Thisisnotatest Read literally I would agree with you. "no sources" and a quick look for some didn't find much failing WP:GNG, and crucially failing WP:CORPDEPTH is my actual WP:BEFORE (plus I couldn't assess the sources you found). Above was shorthand. The three sources aren't significant coverage - seems run of the mill to me. Although the letter of WP:ILLCON is not applicable, the spirit may disregard 2/3 of the current sources. There's just not much coverage. (combined with now disclosed creator's COI User:Kbigdawg1) Widefox ; talk 15:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 19:18, 26 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. No significant coverage. However, there are several passing mentions of the company . APerson (talk!) 19:38, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete No non-trivial coverage; just another small business. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Get rid of it, as it's obviously not notable. I hesitate to recommend deletion, however, as this is potentially a decent alternate name for a coin-operated machine, and that title is a redirect to Vending machine.  So either delete or redirect.  Nyttend (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Nyttend Coin acceptor already targets Currency detector, this proper noun is unrelated, and free for deletion. Widefox ; talk 09:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Because our page titles are case-sensitive, the existence of a differently-capitalised title is not a reason to delete this one: it's just an additional reason for redirecting this one to the same target.  Nyttend (talk) 13:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Nyttend Why? WP:DIFFCAPS doesn't apply as there's not two articles needing disambiguation. I've created the lowercase plural Coin acceptors -> Currency detector. WP:OTHERNAMES is no as well... "it is not necessary to create redirects from alternative capitalizations unless these are likely to be used in links". I personally don't like wrong caps, so I'd prefer delete anyhow. Widefox ; talk 15:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Your ping didn't work; I've come back because I was curious how the discussion was going, not because I got a notification. There's a big difference between "not necessary to do X" and "necessary not to do X", and a big difference between creating something new and retaining something that already exists.  Titles being case-sensitive, someone who goes to Coin Acceptors, i.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coin_Acceptors, will assume that we don't have anything on the subject: there's no good reason to get rid of this unambiguous and not-particularly-unlikely title, rather than retaining it as a redirect, when we're retaining a version that's better capitalised.  This is a fine example of R from other capitalisation.  Final note: as the page was getting several views each day before it was brought here, before there was a capitalisation variant with the same title, we have even less reason to trash it.  Better to retain the history, and better to cause somewhat less confusion, than to delete it entirely.  Nyttend (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Nyttend (this one should work, as it's not re-edited) agree with that logic, and your valid point catalysed my lowercase creation instead and a hatnote at Coin Acceptors (pending deletion). After the former, it seems moot per OTHERNAMES - the redirect needs creating, it's never been in use and there's no need to use the uppercase in a link per OTHERNAMES. The search interface will switch to the lowercase for the historical use case of the uppercase (that until now was badly served without a hatnote), so that's moot too. The only confusion I envisage, is the search interface currently prompting for the uppercase which is a real company name (a minor point as it seems not notable). Caveat my view may be quite personal (redirects being cheap). Widefox ; talk 01:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You fail to observe that I'm not talking about the search interface. Remember that not everyone goes to pages with the search box: it would be appreciated if you didn't totally ignore people who would go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coin_Acceptors, as I already said, rather than Special:Search/Coin_Acceptors.  See WP:RKEEP point #5.  Nyttend (talk) 03:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * After replying I did realise, thanks, and in case I'd missed some important incoming links I quickly checked, but seemed so unimportant I didn't follow-up. So after covering most of the use cases, we're left with those people of the world with this bookmarked? If correct, this seems to me increasingly niche and offtopic. Redirect/Deletion reasons is for redirects. This has never been a redirect. The top says "AfD" not "RfD". (these two articles also have only themselves as INT links, they're COI spam) Widefox ; talk 04:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, the subject is notable. I have added notable references, although WP:GNG does not require that references be present in the article to establish notability. Thisisnotatest (talk) 00:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Those fall short (per my nom, which clarifies that it wasn't just in the article). Stating it's notable without providing significant sources to evaluate against guideline when challenged just isn't persuasive. Widefox ; talk 23:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You need to find secondary sources; news reports about events that just happened are primary sources. Nyttend (talk) 13:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete in any case as the current sources are simply not enough to suggest a better solid article. SwisterTwister   talk  08:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * See also Articles_for_deletion/Royal_Vendors (PROD now been opposed) Widefox ; talk 15:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable.DaveApter (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. They exist. They're a company. Nothing notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH.  Onel 5969  TT me 14:49, 2 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.