Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global product


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Global product

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article, as it stands, IMO contains nothing that merits a separate article. The author has, without explanation, removed a PROD as well as a redirect to Global marketing. Personally, I would prefer the redirect, but failing that I propose deletion. Favonian (talk) 11:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This is someone's homework. Whether it's a class project will depend on whether we start seeing more "global product" articles being turned in before Friday's class. Mandsford (talk) 14:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect as proposed. Complete bollocks:  A global product is a product that can be useful all over the world. It is recognizable as a solution for a generic equivalent problem which is not dependent of any localized parameters. A global product must be explained by only showing a picture. For example a paperclip. A global product need Global Marketing for international trade and development.... - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and perhaps merge the littel additional content to the Product section of Global Marketing. If there ends up enough content in that section for a separate page, then split it out. Nicolai (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect as proposed in nom. As Mandsford said, probably somebody's homework. Much of it is also complete bollocks. I don't see much worth merging for, but if there is, might as well be partially merged, Lord Spongefrog,  (I am the Czar of all Russias!)  19:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect as proposed and strongly oppose any merge as none of this material is sourced or even remotely plausibly accurate -- Whpq (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2009 (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.