Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The whizzard


 * 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. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 00:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The whizzard

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The reason I'm nominating this for deletion, a complete purge, rather than leaving it to wallow as an isolated digital fragment forevermore, is because of how far off the track this will become. It was part of a blast by a COI for their company. We're left with multiple pages that need addressing, non-notable orphans from an inactive (as per social media), non-existent (dissolved in 2017) never notable (as per GNG) failed commercial venture. This would become a redirect to a redirect to a redirect to a redirect because of their activity and their creation of too many articles - from one for their main company which is not notable and being deleted or redirected (open AfD currently), their american subsidiary and then this product. It's a long tail of non-notable promotional guff, and redirects are as cheap as they are costly.

As for the actual product, if it is easily demonstrable that the ultimate parent company is not notable and just the product of an over-zealous promotor with a distinct SPA/COI. My proposition is rather than redirect this to the company which is redirected to the parent company which is redirected to the generic article of the company's base product, to delete it completely. It only exists because of a non-user's abuse of the open policy for their own commercial gains. A vote for redirect pretty much just supports the notion that we must preserve its existence perpetually because once a non-wikipedian with a commercial motive decided to create an article on this product. Rayman60 (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete I found a single news article from 2015. Nothing since, so apparently it didn't quite make the splash that it hoped for. (Forgive the pun.) Schazjmd (talk) 01:05, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Reads like a puff piece more than anything else.TH1980 (talk) 04:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2019 (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.