The article in its original form was about the company itself and did not contain advertising. Advertising edits were made by another user.
Валерий Пасько (
talk) 20:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Thanks, Cryptic. I'm leaning overturn: words like "pioneered" and "cutting-edge" are certainly less than neutral, but that can be fixed pretty easily. G11 requires that the article be "exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten" to be encyclopedic, and that doesn't seem to be met here: there is some referenced neutral information about what the company does. I think that tagging the article with {{
advert}} was more than adequate; draftification might have also been an option. If notability is in question it can go to AfD, but G11 seems a bit of a stretch. I'd also note that a G11 nomination had previously been declined, so renominating it was certainly a party foul and arguably a violation of
WP:CSD.
Extraordinary Writ (
talk) 22:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Endorse the deletion. I'm suprised that procedure is being posited as trumping the decision of two reviewing editors in good standing who came to the same conclusions, 5 months apart, on this brochure article, that was never really improved. scope_creepTalk 23:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Two AfC reviewers do not substitute for the objective criteria for
WP:G11. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 11:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Overturn G11 - The article is not "exclusively promotional", although it does need to be rewritten. This reads like a lot of drafts that I decline at AFC; I don't tag them for G11. Notability is not established, and AFD would be highly desirable. Speedy deletion is not cleanup either. Sometimes G11 is used when the proper remedy is either blocking a promotional editor or removal of promotional content or both.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 23:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Overturn G11 Per Robert McClenon, and I also endorse his suggested next steps. Speedy deletion is not for obvious things, it's for things that are so obvious no good faith editor would disagree.
Jclemens (
talk) 02:09, 13 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Undelete and send to AfD. Clearly promotional, a Russian commercial company with all Russian references and no Russian Wikipedia articleRussian article Lingonberry (company), deletion is likely, but a challenged G11 should speedily go to AfD for a proper discussion. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 02:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Overturn G11. I think G11 is always inappropriate when there are many references and a native language Wikipedia article. (It's helpful to link to the native language Wikipedia article)
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 06:28, 19 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Overturn, send to AfD Per others, a previous G11 was declined here so this should of been PRODed or sent to AfD. A quick source search found at least 1 book source so I would not apply
WP:NOTBURO here, there is a non-trivial chance enough sources can be found to assert notability.
JumpytooTalk 05:39, 13 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Does brusnika mean lingonberry or cranberry?
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 22:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)reply
lingonberry. Cranberry on Russian means "клюква" (klükva)
Валерий Пасько (
talk) 15:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Undelete and AFD agreeing on this to have a proper discussion and then a closure. G11, I feel, is a lot on personal perspective.
Nomadicghumakkad (
talk) 15:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Overturn and either rewrite somewhat or send to afd. I tend to be among the admins most likely to use G11 on promotional articles; a few of my G11s have been considered over-broad by other admins and declined. I would not have even considered using G11 here. There is too much other substantial content. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
DGG (
talk •
contribs) 06:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The article in its original form was about the company itself and did not contain advertising. Advertising edits were made by another user.
Валерий Пасько (
talk) 20:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Thanks, Cryptic. I'm leaning overturn: words like "pioneered" and "cutting-edge" are certainly less than neutral, but that can be fixed pretty easily. G11 requires that the article be "exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten" to be encyclopedic, and that doesn't seem to be met here: there is some referenced neutral information about what the company does. I think that tagging the article with {{
advert}} was more than adequate; draftification might have also been an option. If notability is in question it can go to AfD, but G11 seems a bit of a stretch. I'd also note that a G11 nomination had previously been declined, so renominating it was certainly a party foul and arguably a violation of
WP:CSD.
Extraordinary Writ (
talk) 22:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Endorse the deletion. I'm suprised that procedure is being posited as trumping the decision of two reviewing editors in good standing who came to the same conclusions, 5 months apart, on this brochure article, that was never really improved. scope_creepTalk 23:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Two AfC reviewers do not substitute for the objective criteria for
WP:G11. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 11:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Overturn G11 - The article is not "exclusively promotional", although it does need to be rewritten. This reads like a lot of drafts that I decline at AFC; I don't tag them for G11. Notability is not established, and AFD would be highly desirable. Speedy deletion is not cleanup either. Sometimes G11 is used when the proper remedy is either blocking a promotional editor or removal of promotional content or both.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 23:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Overturn G11 Per Robert McClenon, and I also endorse his suggested next steps. Speedy deletion is not for obvious things, it's for things that are so obvious no good faith editor would disagree.
Jclemens (
talk) 02:09, 13 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Undelete and send to AfD. Clearly promotional, a Russian commercial company with all Russian references and no Russian Wikipedia articleRussian article Lingonberry (company), deletion is likely, but a challenged G11 should speedily go to AfD for a proper discussion. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 02:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Overturn G11. I think G11 is always inappropriate when there are many references and a native language Wikipedia article. (It's helpful to link to the native language Wikipedia article)
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 06:28, 19 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Overturn, send to AfD Per others, a previous G11 was declined here so this should of been PRODed or sent to AfD. A quick source search found at least 1 book source so I would not apply
WP:NOTBURO here, there is a non-trivial chance enough sources can be found to assert notability.
JumpytooTalk 05:39, 13 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Does brusnika mean lingonberry or cranberry?
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 22:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)reply
lingonberry. Cranberry on Russian means "клюква" (klükva)
Валерий Пасько (
talk) 15:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Undelete and AFD agreeing on this to have a proper discussion and then a closure. G11, I feel, is a lot on personal perspective.
Nomadicghumakkad (
talk) 15:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Overturn and either rewrite somewhat or send to afd. I tend to be among the admins most likely to use G11 on promotional articles; a few of my G11s have been considered over-broad by other admins and declined. I would not have even considered using G11 here. There is too much other substantial content. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
DGG (
talk •
contribs) 06:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.