Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lambda (olive oil)

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. The promotional nature of the original article has been tempered, and independent sourcing has been added. Accordingly, the keep position is better supported by the end state of this article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 00:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lambda (olive oil)

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

Purely promotional article. Most of the refs are mere mentions or inclusions in a general article. The others are based on PR. The award is not notable, or reliable as an indication of merit. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Speiron for an AfD already in process the equally promotional article on the equally non-notable company. Personally, I consider this G11 territory ,but there was an opinion in the other AfD that the product article was justified, so it needs a discussion. DGG ( talk ) 06:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, Salt, and Scorch the Earth Where It Once Stood This was something of a saga, but I was loath to nominate this myself after my recent record on AfD nominations. I've done some work on this trying to pare down things to just the bare facts of marginal-notability. It was created by a SPA, and the only editors who have done any appreciable work on it, other than myself, are SPAs. They have been aggressive in removing {{advert}} tags. The creator of the page, somehow, was able to get their hands on high resolution copies of the promotional photos seen (lower-resolution) in some of the linked articles, and tagged them as "own work" but when questioned, elided any relationship with the company (which led to their deletion as copyvios on commons). Although I get the sense that we're really not supposed to delete articles punitively in response to promotion even when unambiguous, i cannot help but derive a bit of schadenfreude from this nomination, especially since someone else did it. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 06:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately, though, topic notability is based upon the availability of reliable sources about topics and the depth of coverage in those sources. You seem very determined to advocate deletion of the article, but discussion regarding sources that cover the topic, the depth of coverage, etc. is often how deletion discussions are ultimately determined. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Weak keep thus far~~ - Here's a bylined article from Packaging Digest: Olive oil revisited. Here's a paragraph from a Los Angeles Times article at Hit 'buy,' and let the prosciutto and coffee beans fly. Here's content from a paywalled Time magazine article at Groceries — for More!, quote from Google News summary: "The Lambda olive oil from Greece, retailing at $182 for 1000 mL, came packaged in more gift-box euphoria than anything Tiffany could imagine. The company ...". Some coverage in reliable sources about this topic are out there, and the depth of coverage in this Time article needs to be examined. Also, here's some marginal coverage in a Packaging News bylined article: Fancy oils’ slick new direction. It seems to be very likely that Greek-language reliable sources that cover this topic could be found, if anyone wants to spend the time doing so. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've addended my !vote above to keep, per the additional source provided below by User:Shawn in Montreal. I had a feeling that more coverage would be available in Greek-language sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:ARTSPAM. - DonCalo (talk) 14:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The tone of the article is not promotional at this time, though. It actually reads very neutrally. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At this point, it's rather hard to see what all the fuss is about: the article is neutrally worded stub, sufficiently referenced, as of today. It's a notable enough brand with just enough in the way of WP:RS, and the merits of the award don't figure into it, at this point, I'd say. Although I'm not at all familiar with this olive oil infobox and some of the info reads like original research, but that is a matter for normal editing, not deletion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, a Greek Google search yields a bunch more WP:RS: here's an interview with the founder (keep in mind the brand name means "L" in Greek: http://www.tovima.gr/socialevents/article/?aid=371873 Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Original Editor's Note: I created the lambda olive oil page because I tried it, I found it really good and well marketed compared to other Greek olive oil products. I have become a fan of lambda since then. If you follow to its web page you can see that it is now sold in the UK, the US, the UAE, Singapore, Romania and in Greece as well as on-line. The press is still quite active about lambda and there are references in magazines and newspapers in Greece and other countries (source: http://www.speironcompany.com/Text/lambdapress.html). Tassosl (talk) 09:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are quite a good number of WP:RS there, it seems. However, given what I understand to have been problems with spam and possibly WP:COI in this article, it would be much better to ad such references from publications directly and not via pop ups on the www.speironcompany.com promotional page. You understand what I mean? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

slight correction: spam, COI, and socking (for which this user's block just recently expired). -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 18:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The current pared-down version is much more accurate and cites several independent sources that can verify the basic facts as well as general notability. I do think it could be even more neutral -- for instance, several sources clearly state this is very expensive for olive oil, perhaps ridiculously so for a product that isn't really even artisanal in nature. In any case, it's been cleaned up a lot and is no longer pure fluff. Steven Walling • talk 01:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's interesting. That'll be a good acid test for who is a spammer or not. Now, I've added one ref about the split with Krista. I personally didn't feel that Olive Oil Times was making an encyclopedically notable comment about price: luxury products always have high mark ups and packaging costs. But the split with Krista was notable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I added a bit more about the history from what seems to be a WP:RS online Greek American dietician's food site. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As if you needed support for the promotional nature of this article, the creator (which i will again note has been banned for promotion-related socking at this article), Tassosl has attempted to both remove some of the supplier disagreement content as well as insert additional promotional stuff (here). -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 06:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, you remain confused at these Afd discussions about what constitutes notability. That only proves -- as I thought it would -- that this editor should be blocked. Not that the sufficient WP:RS indicating notability are to be discounted, and not that the spammy state the article used to be in before clean up makes it forever tainted. Block the editor, protect the page if necessary. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've issued a talk page warning -- this is what one should do when one sees promotional edits, along with reverting those edits. It does little good to complain about editors' actions at Afd if one doesn't also apply warnings. Now, I've also raised this matter at WP:AIV asking if we can dispense with additional warnings and block now as a promotional account: this has gone on long enough, surely. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the cited sources are pages on promotional websites, and the others only briefly mention "Lambda", the best being a fairly long article which devotes one short paragraph to "Lambda". There is no reasonable way of regarding this as substantial coverage in independent sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the spam editor had, for some reason, removed a Greek-language RS that I had taken the trouble to find and add, perhaps because in some way it had displeased his employer? Which I won't take the trouble to replace. Screw it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

.... aaaaand now he's been blocked. Period. best, 17:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I've gone and restored the Greek WP:RS. I can't fathom why the blocked editor wanted it gone, but it does provide WP:V. Be curious to see if he socks again and tries to delete it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source you restored may or may not be a reliable one, but it is about Giorgos Koliopoulos, the owner of the company that produces Lambda olive oil, and it is written in the first person, which does not give the impression that it is an independent source. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, wait, my third attempt at a reply: It was published by Greek daily To Vima, and you'll see at the bottom it was reprinted from the Greek men's mag BHMAMEN, bylined as by Marilena Astrapellou, "Issue 57, pp. 60-61, December 2010." In fact, I will revise the ref if the article kept to reflect the original publication date and author. It was some form of Q&A. But I suppose its first person account does make it a WP:PRIMARY source. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:47, 17 September 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.