Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Largest domestic 53 foot container companies (fleet size)

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. Tone 18:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Largest domestic 53 foot container companies (fleet size)

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Largest domestic 53 foot container companies (fleet size) (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)

This is a list that seems to have been created by a user for the primary purpose of exhibiting his 3D drawings. A list of figures from one source does not amount to justifying a stand-alone article. There's no contents to this page beside a small list. Graywalls (talk) 10:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 10:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:SALAT/too specific. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

• I've also deleted the container pictures in List of largest container shipping companies. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

• The creator of this article/these images seems to have placed these drawings at various locations. I've removed the images from several articles, as I do not feel they add anything to those articles and are simply there to exhibit these drawings, similar to what is stated by the nominator here. (Of course, these images may also contravene WP:FAIRUSE, as they contain corporate logos in a non-de minimis sense, and may also violate Commons' policy on not hosting fair-use content. That's a separate discussion, though.) --Kinu ^t/_c 22:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

and it seems like diagram is being used as "visual" reference as a way to skirt our reliable sources requirements. Graywalls (talk) 22:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. No indication that this list merits inclusion. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. Very much WP:LISTCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 09:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• Delete just seems to be a sample list using made up images (which is probably original research). MilborneOne (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I think you misunderstand what original research is. It is not original research, because someone has previously compiled the list. That said, the article is most definitely not worthy of keeping. Bookscale (talk) 11:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• comment I just wanted to comment on this so people don't get the wrong idea. I don't believe that simply using graphical representation of what you want to say gets around the no original research policy. So, a self created visual aid is just like a written contents you created from personal knowledge or anecdotes. Graywalls (talk) 23:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - I agree that it fails WP:LIST although not necessarily WP:OR. An article could in theory be made about fleets of containers but not this page. Bearian (talk) 14:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
• Delete I agree, fails WP:OR, no indications this is a real-world classification. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:38, 2 November 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.