Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Navofanny

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. John254 00:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nafovanny[edit]

This article should be deleted. In its current state it is non-salvagable - the entirety of NPOV information would be one sentence.

It is not notable. Per notability about corporations, the corp should be referenced by multiple, independent third party sources. This article has one independent third party source, and Novafanny recieves an insubstantial one sentence mention at the bottom of that source. All other references are primary sources (two minor mentions in UK parliament) and activist sources.
It is a POV hit piece. All of the other sources in the article are from activist groups who make negative allegations about the company. We know nothing about the corporation, its employees, its budgets, its ownership - nothing. It contains a shock picture instead of a logo or other identifying graphic.
It is a POV link farm. Up to the latest revision [1] It contained two animal rights navigation templates. It is strictly categorized in animal rights categories. The see also is eight animal rights wikilinks. The "further reading" is an external link to an activist web page. Four of the "reliable source references" were to animal rights campaigns designed to get readers to those activist pages, not to give NPOV information about this company.

SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Keep. There is no reason at all to delete this. There are multiple independent sources, including newspapers and the British Home Office. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think those trivial briefs are quite what the the Notability guidelines are wanting. I can think of many other articles you've asked to have deleted with stronger media mentions than those. Have you addressed the POV concerns? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Keep per SlimVirgin. I too am perplexed as to why this should be deleted, the article is well referenced through multiple non-trivial sources. Full stop. RFerreira (talk) 23:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this seems to meet all the criteria for inclusion. If you are having some problems with PoV on the article, feel free to improve it and edit them out. matt91486 (talk) 23:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You really think a one sentence blurb in the bottom of one newspaper article establishes notability? In that case my mom is notable, because that's about the strength of this notability claim. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Weak Keep I see SchmuckyTheCat's point, it was essentially an attack article, and it still has that flavor to it (though less so since SV's additions). I think the only (and hence leading) image is a problem, because it is a representation from a partisan and critical lobby group which doesn't appear to be authenticated or published by any neutral, reliable source (indeed, BUAV claim that all the major UK broadcasters backed away from an agreement to broadcast their investigation after they saw the material. Make of that what you will). However, there are now a few, neutral 3rd party sources reporting on its creation of the joint venture and the controversy it engendered, so within he context of the notorious publicity-shy lab animal industry, I would argue that it is sufficiently notable enough for its own article. Rockpocket 01:03, 27 February 2008 (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.