Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skinny Food Co: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:36, 2 January 2024

Skinny Food Co

[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)

Promo piece, fails WP:NCORP ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks notable to me. Reliable sources 1, 2, already listed in the article. Don't delete: fix.—S Marshall T/C 23:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@S Marshall neither is significant coverage and whether independent or not, they both read as promo pieces to me. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I collegially join issue with you. :) The Sunday Times is a British Newspaper of Record and Wikipedians evaluate it as reliable. The relevant discussions and consensuses are linked from WP:THETIMES. If you can read that link and say it's not SIGCOV then I don't really know how to react to that.—S Marshall T/C 00:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing and notifying of the deletion proposal. I tried to only use secondary sources that meet the standards for credibility. Although I do agree with you that some feel promotional, as far as I could tell none were advertorials, product placements etc, and were more just positive skewed coverage. I did try and balance the article and remove any overall bias in the article by proactively seeking out critical sources also.

Westenders (talk) 12:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 *:@[[User:S Marshall|S Marshall]] neither is significant coverage and whether independent or not, they both read as promo pieces to me. ~ 🦝 [[User:Shushugah|Shushugah]]&nbsp;(he/him&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[User talk:Shushugah|talk]]) 23:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 *::I collegially join issue with you. :) [[The Sunday Times]] is a British [[Newspaper of Record]] and Wikipedians evaluate it as reliable. The relevant discussions and consensuses are linked from [[WP:THETIMES]]. If you can read that link and say it's not SIGCOV then I don't really know how to react to that.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 00:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
+:Thanks for reviewing and notifying of the deletion proposal. I tried to only use secondary sources that meet the standards for credibility. Although I do agree with you that some feel promotional, as far as I could tell none were advertorials, product placements etc, and were more just positive skewed coverage. I did try and balance the article and remove any overall bias in the article by proactively seeking out critical sources also.
+: [[User:Westenders|Westenders]] ([[User talk:Westenders|talk]]) 12:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)