- 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 keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
King Oscar sardines
- King Oscar sardines ( | 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 article is an avertisement, containing promotional words. It contained those in its very first version. The only source listed is a primary source. This article is WP:TAINTED and should be dealt with. Burning Pillar ( talk) 15:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep The GNG has been met - for example, see
[1],
[2] and so on. As a side note, please can the nominator stop linking their own essay "
WP:TAINTED" in AfD discussions, it's their own opinion, and AfD discussions are based on policies and guidelines.
Exemplo347 (
talk) 15:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- I've seen plenty of essays being linked in deletion discussions like that, and you surely don't have to follow it... if you read it and disagree that's fine. Just tell why it shouldn't be done that way. I just use it in deletion discussions if it's an appropiate summary of what I think of this. Also, that what is written in this essay is what I think about how to ensure that our WP:NPOV standard isn't continuously being undermined by more and more not neutral articles that pile up in Wikipedia. If you don't believe me, then look at these two tips of the iceberg: this here and that. I've seen the "we can improve, retain it" standard, and it just undermines WP:NPOV, if the issues pile on if it is used. My argumentation IS based on policy, even core content policy, on a pillar, even if I just linked an essay. Burning Pillar ( talk) 16:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment It is an essay which you wrote, and has no input from anyone else. It seems like a way to make your opinion seem more important. Please do not cite your personal essay. Edison ( talk) 17:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
-
I'm with you fellers. There's some merit to the reasoning on both sides. In its present state the article reads like brand promotion, and lacks attributions to neutral sources. On the other hand, this is an iconic, long-lasting brand and reliable sources do exist.
[3]
[4]
[5] Ideally, I would hope to see the article improved, cleaning up the promotional text and laying out the history with sufficient sourcing to explain why this is more than just another fish brand that's been swallowed up recently by
Thai Union. On the assumption that we can do that, I !vote to keep.--
Arxiloxos (
talk) 20:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that's exactly the fallacy I told you about(also, it is an argument that is listed here). Yes, it can probably be improved. It could also be rewritten from scratch, without having the burden of cleaning up an advertisement mess. As you can see, the number of problematic, but notable articles is hardly going to reduce itself. There is no deadline to articles with poor grammar or such. But if the articles are written not neutral, then they harm the encyclopedia by existing contrary to WP:NPOV, one of the 5 pillars the encyclopedia is built on. Of course, that can be fixed( and my essay does acknowledge that), but that doesn't happen in an acceptable pace for all articles in total. And if an article is really messed up with advertisements, then it IS probably easier to write a new article than to try to indentify and fix the mass of problems(bad weight of sources, OR, non-neutral terms, tone, cherrypicking) some articles have. With the sources provided, it should be possible to make a new article. The current article is little more than a roadblock, and an article written from a NPOV standpoint is much better than an advert someone tried to trim towards WP:NPOV, on average. Burning Pillar ( talk) 00:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- My advice would be, if it passes as keep for notability, but has unacceptable tone, to as necessary clean up the article of problematic or unsourced statements. A stub could result if necessary, with the list of reliable sources demonstrating the notability. An interested enough editor might possibly eventually improve the article... —░] PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ? ERROR░ 03:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep, no actual deletion reason given. Geschichte ( talk) 09:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep since sources exist to demonstrate notability as noted in this deletion discussion. See WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. ZettaComposer ( talk) 14:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep: Plenty of significant coverage exists.
SL93 (
talk) 14:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- "No deletion reason given" " WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP" Did you read? Apparently not. The deletion reason is that this article is, and has constantly been, in violation of WP:NPOV. And if you would read WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, you'd notice it allows deletion of such articles. Burning Pillar ( talk) 16:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep, obviously notable. Manxruler ( talk) 17:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - I have cleaned up the article a bit, to make it look less like a promotional page for the company, and added independent sources. There's room for further improvement, but notability is clearly shown in the article now. -- bonadea contributions talk 18:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:09, 11 April 2017 (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.
- 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 keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
King Oscar sardines
- King Oscar sardines ( | 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 article is an avertisement, containing promotional words. It contained those in its very first version. The only source listed is a primary source. This article is WP:TAINTED and should be dealt with. Burning Pillar ( talk) 15:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep The GNG has been met - for example, see
[1],
[2] and so on. As a side note, please can the nominator stop linking their own essay "
WP:TAINTED" in AfD discussions, it's their own opinion, and AfD discussions are based on policies and guidelines.
Exemplo347 (
talk) 15:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- I've seen plenty of essays being linked in deletion discussions like that, and you surely don't have to follow it... if you read it and disagree that's fine. Just tell why it shouldn't be done that way. I just use it in deletion discussions if it's an appropiate summary of what I think of this. Also, that what is written in this essay is what I think about how to ensure that our WP:NPOV standard isn't continuously being undermined by more and more not neutral articles that pile up in Wikipedia. If you don't believe me, then look at these two tips of the iceberg: this here and that. I've seen the "we can improve, retain it" standard, and it just undermines WP:NPOV, if the issues pile on if it is used. My argumentation IS based on policy, even core content policy, on a pillar, even if I just linked an essay. Burning Pillar ( talk) 16:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment It is an essay which you wrote, and has no input from anyone else. It seems like a way to make your opinion seem more important. Please do not cite your personal essay. Edison ( talk) 17:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
-
I'm with you fellers. There's some merit to the reasoning on both sides. In its present state the article reads like brand promotion, and lacks attributions to neutral sources. On the other hand, this is an iconic, long-lasting brand and reliable sources do exist.
[3]
[4]
[5] Ideally, I would hope to see the article improved, cleaning up the promotional text and laying out the history with sufficient sourcing to explain why this is more than just another fish brand that's been swallowed up recently by
Thai Union. On the assumption that we can do that, I !vote to keep.--
Arxiloxos (
talk) 20:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that's exactly the fallacy I told you about(also, it is an argument that is listed here). Yes, it can probably be improved. It could also be rewritten from scratch, without having the burden of cleaning up an advertisement mess. As you can see, the number of problematic, but notable articles is hardly going to reduce itself. There is no deadline to articles with poor grammar or such. But if the articles are written not neutral, then they harm the encyclopedia by existing contrary to WP:NPOV, one of the 5 pillars the encyclopedia is built on. Of course, that can be fixed( and my essay does acknowledge that), but that doesn't happen in an acceptable pace for all articles in total. And if an article is really messed up with advertisements, then it IS probably easier to write a new article than to try to indentify and fix the mass of problems(bad weight of sources, OR, non-neutral terms, tone, cherrypicking) some articles have. With the sources provided, it should be possible to make a new article. The current article is little more than a roadblock, and an article written from a NPOV standpoint is much better than an advert someone tried to trim towards WP:NPOV, on average. Burning Pillar ( talk) 00:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- My advice would be, if it passes as keep for notability, but has unacceptable tone, to as necessary clean up the article of problematic or unsourced statements. A stub could result if necessary, with the list of reliable sources demonstrating the notability. An interested enough editor might possibly eventually improve the article... —░] PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ? ERROR░ 03:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep, no actual deletion reason given. Geschichte ( talk) 09:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep since sources exist to demonstrate notability as noted in this deletion discussion. See WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. ZettaComposer ( talk) 14:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep: Plenty of significant coverage exists.
SL93 (
talk) 14:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- "No deletion reason given" " WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP" Did you read? Apparently not. The deletion reason is that this article is, and has constantly been, in violation of WP:NPOV. And if you would read WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, you'd notice it allows deletion of such articles. Burning Pillar ( talk) 16:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep, obviously notable. Manxruler ( talk) 17:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - I have cleaned up the article a bit, to make it look less like a promotional page for the company, and added independent sources. There's room for further improvement, but notability is clearly shown in the article now. -- bonadea contributions talk 18:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:09, 11 April 2017 (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.