Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fastest-selling products (2nd nomination)


 * 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The result was Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Jucchan (talk) 07:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

List of fastest-selling products
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Reason for Afd: This is the 2nd Nomination for this article, with the previous one ending with no consensus. (see here for the first discussion.) I am nominating this article for being indiscriminate, as there is an infinite amount of "fastest-selling" things that can be listed. As I and others said in the previous discussion, the article is a trivial, indiscriminate list that compares apples to oranges. The "inclusion criteria" is unsourced, and isn't actually an "inclusion criteria" because all it does is a vague and inconclusive "definition" of fastest-selling. Although almost all entries are sourced, they seem to be listed almost at random. This is a quote from the previous discussion:

''Well, I can't say that my research was *that* rigorous at all, and was more like a quick flick through the first few pages of google hits, and latest few pages of ooglenews hits, and stuffing a bunch of links into the article from there. Plus, I was having trouble with my computer (lagging horribly), so my work was cut short. I'm sure if I researched further and wider, the sources would show themselves. Yes: at the moment there is no strict criteria of what "fastest-selling" means... but in my opinion there is one.. or at least one for each product category. And theres only one way to know if I am right or not. Let's get to work! :D--Coin945 (talk) 16:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)''

The creator himself admits that there was no real criteria for inclusion, other than it being on the same page as the words "fastest-selling." This also confirms that the "inclusion criteria" is original research, at it says ''Yes: at the moment there is no strict criteria of what "fastest-selling" means... but in my opinion there is one.. or at least one for each product category.''

There is no uniform unit of time in the article, and as I and Nabla showed:

''....The products seem to be listed almost at random; "Game console (Japan)", "Pre-Order of 2012", "Barnes&Noble Product", "2012 Album (UK)", etc. What happened to Pre-Order of 2011 and 2010? What about Game console (US) or 2010 Album (Spain)? What about 2002 rubber ducky and 1999 magazine? Jucchan (talk) 04:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)''

''....When thinking about "highest-grossing films" I think total revenue (over time and over media) of films, I have some sort of criteria from the start. "fastest selling products" is what? 'fastest' is... sold most on first day? weak? hour? month? year? 'selling' is quantity? value? 'Product' is iPhone? iPhone4? iPhone3? cellphone? bathtubs? video games? video games for Windows? horseshoes? large horseshoes? small horseshoes? Golf clubs? seeds? farm? calendars? encyclopaedias? encyclopaedias? That sounds like the definition of indiscriminate. - Nabla (talk) 14:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC) ''

''....What was the best-selling headphone in Rwanda? What was the fastest-selling type of sand in 1965 in California? What was the fastest-selling pajama in China for 1997? Fastest-selling brand of butterscotch in Finland, or in Tokyo, or in Seattle, or in Australia? Also, what timeframe will be used? First week? First month? First year? Although Brawl sold the most on its first week, Wii Sports sold the faster in its first 5 years. The possible entries are infinite (not literally). Jucchan (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC) ''

There is an almost infinite amount of things that could be listed, making the list indiscriminate.

Of the 7 keep votes, 4 of them used no rationale for deletion or "has an inclusion criteria" for their argument, and one said that the article could be a space for "both high seriousness and well-sourced random information." A list of random information is indiscriminate!

In conclusion, this list is a collection of random trivial information with inclusion being based solely on whether or not someone has said that it was "fastest-selling", and should be DELETED. Jucchan (talk) 03:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment The previous discussion just closed, could we have waited a little bit?  Jay Jay What did I do? 03:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought about that, but from my viewpoint, waiting wouldn't have helped because this is a issue that won't fix itself over time. The previous discussion had a no consensus, and mostly because of votes in the beginning of the discussion, before the big arguments. The arguments in the latter half of the discussion practically nullified most of the ones that mentioned "inclusion criteria." Jucchan (talk) 04:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep And recommend an admin close. Procedurally, since the previous AFD closed hours ago. I understand that some editors are concerned by this article, but re-nominating it so quickly smacks of WP:POINT. If the creator said what he said, maybe we should allow him (and others) to work on the article instead of peppering him with AFD notices and forcing him to come down here to slug it out with everyone. If there was no consensus a few hours ago, there's not going to be consensus tomorrow. I'd ask for at least a few weeks before this is brought to AFD again. There is no deadline here. § FreeRangeFrog croak 05:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep As above. Nothing has changed. This is a waste. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Withdraw Fine, but FreeRangeFrog, there is a deadline. I will give until the end of January for Coin945 and other Wikipedians to improve the article so it has an actual inclusion criteria. If the list is still the random mess it is now, I will put it for AfD again. I am sorry for not waiting long enough and jumping to another AfD too quickly. Jucchan (talk) 07:11, 6 January 2013 (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.