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 no consensus but with severe reservations. The participation here is split evenly (7 keep, 7 delete) and it is normally a straightforward "no consensus" if both sides of the argument have merit and support for each position is even. But this is a close call, and in one sense I feel I am closing this with the "wrong" outcome in the sense that I would have voted delete had I participated in the discussion. However, there is enough merit in the "keep" argument for me to close this discussion with the standard "default to keep", albeit not enough that would have convinced me to vote keep.

After looking at the discussion and the article, my gut instinct was that the "delete" side had a much stronger case. Basically the problem is that the article gathers together examples of products that media has described as "fastest selling", but where there is no well-defined criterion for what type of time period that is, nor if it is a product that was the fastest selling of its type at the time, or if it is the fastest selling ever. I was a bit alarmed when I read Coin945's (article's creator) statement late in the debate: "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." Coin945 should be commended for his honesty here, but I feel that the result is a list of products that are loosely associated by sharing a common phrase in news articles. In my mind, that is treading the line on indiscriminate information. The arguments by Ten Pound Hammer, Colonel Warden, and Jucchan are very strong ones in my opinion.

But still, I am closing this with no consensus. What saves this article is:

• The individual entries on the list are (mostly) cited, and should be verifiable. The lowest threshold of the contents in the article passing the WP:V policy is therefore met.
• There is a criterion in the lead section that gives some guidance of what should be in the article.
• Conceivably, the article does provide some navigational purpose if people want to look for products that were sold quickly when they were released, a topic that is of interest in consumer economics.

There is enough merit in these arguments (which were given in some form or another by Richard-of-Earth, Northamerica1000, FreeRangerFrog, and Colapeninsula) to make this a no consensus, even though my concerns in the paragraph above are not fully alleviated.

Note that some of the entries do not meet the criteria in the lead at all, for instance "Airbus A320" being listed as "fastest selling jetliner" makes no sense if we are going to judge this by sales in its first week. (Aircraft are not sold retail by the week, shortly after release.) There is need of editing here, but problems that can be solved in that manner are surmountable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of fastest-selling products[edit]

List of fastest-selling products (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Author contested prod on talk page with the following:

Because I think think this article, like the other articles which you have prodded for deletion, are not worthy of deletion, and rather than argue with you one on one I think a community discussion would be much more fruitful... especially in regard to the directory-type articles - a new form of article that many editors showed their support for at one of the AFD discussions.

My reasoning is that the list has no specific criterion for inclusion. Literally any product can be "fastest selling", the information does not seem terribly relevant, as this seems like an easy record to keep breaking and breaking. Also, there is no set criterion for the unit of time, as the article even elaborates on — comparing something that was fastest-selling in a week vs. fastest selling in 52 weeks is apples and oranges. As it stands, this is far too loose of a list. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Since Wikipedia is all suppose to be cited, then the list will only contain items reputed in reliable sources to be fastest selling. It therefore cannot be too loose of a list. Per WP:LISTPURP this list has useful information and can also be used for navigating Wikipedia. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I don't really see a valid reason for deletion in the nominator's rationale; all I see is an issue with how the article is set up - that can easily be fixed by making a criteria for inclusion. Lukeno94 (talk) 11:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Because this article has a well-defined criteria for its content located in its lead section, and also keep WP:LISTPURP. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Seems too indiscriminate and promotional. There doesn't seem to be any uniformity or standard setter and so the information is not reliable or comparable. Warden (talk) 14:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as creator Just wanted to point out that this article is not one of the "directory-type articles" that I was referring to. Rationale-wise, I'm with Northamerica1000 on this one.--Coin945 (talk) 15:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Warden. There may be a clear stated criterion, but it's arbitrary. "The definition of 'fastest-selling' usually refers to the amount sold in the first week of its release" is unreferenced WP:OR. --BDD (talk) 19:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep These articles are a form of trivia I suppose, but properly sourced and assuming they don't turn into a coatrack, I think they're perfectly fine. This is a good example of a list being far more appropriate than a category (well, a category would be useless here). §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Even though every example of fastest-selling is gauged to a different time period, thus making this entire list several steps beyond apples and oranges? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the "Properties" section is a bit fringey, but nothing a bit of consensus can't fix. The other ones seem fine to me. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep "Fastest-selling" is a commonly used word in music and video games, with a definition given in multiple references, and attracting frequent media interest. I know some people think this is too trivial to feature on Wikipedia, but there is space for both high seriousness and well-sourced random information. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not notable and trivial (fun to read, but not encyclopedic I am afraid.). --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If this article was nurtured, it could be as useful as the "highest grossing films" or "best-selling products" articles. As is, I agree with you... it is a bit of a mess, but if we put our heads together we can achieve something great indeed. I'm sure there's a very useful article just waiting to be unleashed.--Coin945 (talk)

• Keep No valid rationale for deletion JayJay^{Talk to me} 03:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Warden. The list is too trivial, and it needs a uniform standard of time. 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)[reply]

• I never said the article was complete by any means. All I did was dive right in, trying to find as many sources as I could as fast as I could to give the article *something*. Now, we can start to fill in the content coverage holes, and get rid of the worse material. I'd rather include every source I find listing something as "fastest-selling", and then sifting through it later, than excluding some for various reasons, and having to go back and find them all when we get back to it. I entirely agree with you. We most definitely need "Pre-Order of 2011 and 2010... Game console (US) or 2010 Album (Spain)". By all means, go out there and locate this informaiton. I'm sure we'll all be eternally grateful. :)--Coin945 (talk) 06:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Indiscriminate list. - Nabla (talk) 11:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a trivial and indiscriminate list of information. --Biker Biker (talk) 13:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Are these deletes based on the current state of the article, or on the topic's potential? If your delete is based on the former, let me say this: At the moment, yes the list is rather indiscriminate, but the information that would made the list discriminate is most certainly out there, and just has to be found. As I responded to Jucchan, the only reason it may look like trivia is because it is unfinished. If the "highest-grossing films" article was seen in this state, would you still be voting delete?--Coin945 (talk) 13:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both. The topic does not seem notable, and then the current state does not point me any way that it may be notable which I might have not considered before. 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)[reply]

Well in answer to one of your points, I suspect that the definition of "fastest-selling" will vary depending on the type of product involved. Obviously the categories will be notable in their own right, and so will the products within them. Also, if the "fastest-selling"... (i dunno.......okay i'll use the calendar example that you gave) calendar is notable in its own right, and we have sources to confirm this, grab that source and stuff it into the article as fast as you can. The fact that at this point in time, there are different measures of "fastest-selling" within the same product category, is merely a testament to the particular sources that I locates, rather than on whether the informaiton is actually out there or not.--Coin945 (talk) 15:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can not use as criterion that some newspapper called it "fastest selling" because newspappers do not have a set criterion. That you can not find standard measures is a hint that maybe there is none. How come your subjective perception that some criterion should exists, overcomes the fact, collected by you, that none was found? - Nabla (talk) 15:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

«my research was [...] more like a quick flick through the first few pages of google hits [...] and stuffing a bunch of links into the article from there». I would bet so, and would won. It would work out so much better if instead of creating poor articles with this google-paste method, and then spending lots of effort - your and other's - discussing to keep or delete them, instead you took the trouble to create better articles... or chose the next idea and move on when that is not possible. - Nabla (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the topic is potentially notable (did that make any sense?) and looks indiscriminate because of the current state of the article. HOWEVER, because there are lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of products and product types, the article will never be discriminate. The topic is too broad to begin with. 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)[reply]

Well, my theory is that this article is on par with "List of best-selling products". That concept would probably also be indiscriminate in your view, but as enough sources had been located, the topic was split up into List of best-selling albums, List of best-selling singles, List of best-selling video games, List of best-selling books etc... The only reason all the information is in this one article is because if I split it up now, there would be maybe a couple entries in each, which would just be stupid. I'm keeping everything in the one article until we have too much information in it, from where we can discuss various splits to have discriminate sub-articles. Plus, in accordance to what I said before, I do not know what "fastest-selling" means, but I assume that it is a notable topic, and expect it means a different thing depending on product category. I suspect all it tales is a bit of research to find this out for sure. Can any of you get past paywalls? I'm severely disadvantaged, especially in an article like this which probably requires a lot of news sources... :/--Coin945 (talk) 04:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what? You created a list about fastest-selling products without knowing what fastest-selling even meant? Wow. Jucchan (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not exactly what I meant. I know that in general "fastest-selling" refers to which product sold the most in its first week of release... but I also know that sometimes you start off with a fixed number of copies and you compare the amount of time is takes for them to get sold. I specified that in the intro. The sources, however proved that there are other ways of judging fastest-selling that I had not taken into account. I had assumptions, yes, about this topic that I deemed notable, but only once I actually started researching did I find that it may be a bit more complicated than it first appears. As I have said already, however, it may just be due to the specific sources that I found. There maybe be sources which deem a whole variety of different products fastest-selling by how much they sold in the first week.... and I just picked the dud articles that compare them based on arbitrary criteria. I don't know. But as I have said, even if different product categories have different measurements for fastest-selling, we should be able to create a well=sourced, notable article.--Coin945 (talk) 03:16, 3 January 2013 (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.