Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Village Candle
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 00:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Village Candle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non-notable company. The article has been repeatedly created and repeatedly deleted as spam. There is an apparent COI in the necessity to repeatedly recreate the article. The original recreator of the article has repeatedly removed the speedy deletion tag. See the history of Village candle as well. Corvus cornixtalk 04:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete Their major competitor, Yankee Candle Company, has an article unchallenged here (it provides much better evidence of WP:N and WP:V). I suspect the serial recreation of this article is indeed COI, and is based on the company's wish to be seen to "be here too". The notability assertions appear weak. Is having the biggest candle shop in Maine notable? Is very fast growth notable, unless it has made you the market leader? Of the refs (discounting the self-published ones), the Reuters Business one is a verbatim Village Candle press release, the Fox News is good but only mentions the firm incidentally rather than as the main subject of the article, and the 1099.com (mirrored from a profile here) probably does count as nontrivial, but I can't find any others. I'd be happy to reconsider with more sources or a stronger assertion of notability, but right now I can't see a good case for inclusion. Karenjc 10:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Given its history it seems like spam and advertising for some company. Per Karenjc above, if the article can be expanded and improved then I could reconsider but right now this article should be deleted. --Banime (talk) 15:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I have added the speedy delete to the article a few times. Advertisement. Schuym1 (talk) 17:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I tagged it for speedy deletion several times. TML (talk) 04:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Only out of fairness, because there are 2 or 3 other comparable candle-company articles out there. --Lockley (talk) 00:18, 24 September 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.