Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HealthySYNC


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 11:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

HealthySYNC

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This vending machine was only installed in one middle school. It is non-notable, same with the middle school which I redirected to the school district. I did not merge the middle school article to the school district article because I would never merge unreferenced content. SL93 (talk) 01:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * DeleteNothing notable here.JoelWhy (talk) 13:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Obvious delete A vending machine that used to be in a middle school. No sources to establish notability. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as borderline nonsense, cases like this is why we should have a db-product criteria. Secret account 19:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge(d) I've merged the content to Upper_Darby_School_District.  Suggest this be SNOW closed.--v/r - TP 19:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no sources outside wikipedia mirrors to even meet WP:V and WP:NOR, a delete is better. Secret account 19:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:N says "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not directly limit the content of an article or list." and WP:V says "However, in practice it is only necessary to provide inline citations for quotations and for any information that has been challenged or that is likely to be challenged." Are you saying that you find HealthySYNC so contentious that it cannot be included in the article about the school district?--v/r - TP 19:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually if we can't prove if the item even existed, Google bought only mirrors of Wikipedia, then it fails WP:V because we can't verify the information thus it's original research. That's the main rule of the policy. Secret account 19:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Google isn't the only source of information in the world. Not that I have a source, but basing your argument on WP:GHITS isn't very compelling.--v/r - TP 19:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course Google isn't the only source of information. But how can we know that the editor didn't make the information up? And if it did exist, this is original research talking about an individual vending machine in a school with no sourcing to back it up other than their memory. It's the same as an article describing a celebrity that you knew non-notable car before they got famous. It might have existed, but there isn't going to be sources on that person car other than your own memory. Is the car mergeable then? The timeframe when the machine was added and removed was easily in the Internet age, and it was being described as it was an innovation (vending machines that accepts coupons are common now, but not in 2001, so Google should have an hit or two on the machine). It's always been the consensus on Wikipedia, if the article subject can't be verified to exist, then there shouldn't be an article, nor it should be merged somewhere. Secret account 19:47, 23 April 2012 (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.