Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vitam-R

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 merge to Yeast extract. Apparently, there is not enough material for a standalone article in the sources. Discussion about article creation processes or the usefulness (or lack thereof) of stubs is not really pertinent. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vitam-R

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No references. No indication of product notability. Google search indicates that it exists,that this Wikipedia article exists, and that it is marketed. There is no independent coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a minutes-old stub, for heaven's sake. -ProhibitOnions ^(T)

Not sure exactley what you are trying to say. But if the article is not complete than maybe it should remain as a draft and published once completed. Freetheangels (talk) 07:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT Correct me if I am wrong but even an article which is a stub must be notable. Not notable, significance not established. Is there even an article here. Freetheangels (talk) 07:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I see that, twelve hours after the nomination, the stub is still an unsourced stub. The real purpose of the stub had already been fulfilled, which was search engine optimization spam, and not to build a real article. So I stand by my nomination. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's a stunning comment - bordering on WP:NPA. How about WP:AGF? As for why I began this stub, there are a handful of products of this type around the world, and this is the only one that didn't have an article. After I split the Marmite article to create Marmite (New Zealand) I saw someone had put in a redlink for this one. It's a well-enough known product in Germany, so it seemed reasonable enough for it to have an article too. -ProhibitOnions ^(T) 08:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is a widely held belief among contributors that one should be allowed to throw a stub in while one is building the article. This belief is not consistent with policies and guidelines, which are to "build" the article in user space or draft space. As long as stubs are indexed within a few minutes, stubs should be subject to AFD within a few minutes. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Yeast extract. From what I can find, source searches are not providing enough coverage to qualify a standalone article, but a merge would improve the yeast extract article, and is a functional WP:ATD-M. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Yeast extract where it can be mentioned as another example, but I'm not seeing the WP:RS for a stand-alone article in accordance with WP:NCORP. I looked at the machine translation of the bio-markt.info, it strikes me as a passing mention. I couldn't get a translation of Künstliche Kost book (non-English sources are fine, but my inability to read German makes reviewing them more difficult).

As for the fact that this is a brand-new stub, my thought is that stubs have outlived their usefulness. In the old days, they were a good way to generate a place holder for a future article. Now that we have draft space, I think that's an obsolete concept. Along those lines, draftify would be a reasonable WP:ATD. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. The refs aren't strong enough for a standalone article, Google returning nothing better. Szzuk (talk) 23:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.