Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ogalo
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. Sr13 03:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ogalo[edit]
This is a procedural nomination after being CSD'd with db-spam and recreated. Article fails WP:CORP. A very minor chicken shop chain operating in only one state, this article is written like an advertisement, has no information which demonstrates notability (and sponsoring the football club of a private school does not confer notability by association either), lacks any significant references, and is a privately held company of which little is known or can be found about. It's just another of the many examples of corpcruft infesting Wikipedia. Thewinchester (talk) 23:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Thewinchester (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You need to look at the hundreds of POV and biased articles that exist on WP for products, brands, companies...etc - this one is an Australian company and similar to other food outlets, restaurants (inc Oporto, Nandos..etc) which have articles - yes it does need expanding and ref's cited to make it more notable - I am in the process of cleaning this up to make it better. --Mikecraig 00:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is exactly why we're having a cleanup. If you see one worthy of nomination under the guidelines, feel free to nominate, or let others know. BTW Nandos is an international organisation with stockmarket listings and oodles of independent coverage, so is not in anywhere near the same situation. Orderinchaos 02:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment With respect to the points you have raised, POV is not the issue with this article, something you are now being informed of for the second time which leads me to suspect that you may have a possible [[WP:|conflict of interest]] in this matter. The fact it does not and will likely never meet the standard required for compliance against WP:CORP is. Also, just because a competing or similar chain (currently) has an article doesn't mean that Chain X deserves one too - it's a faulty argument which does not fly in AfD. You could try and clean up this article as much as you want, but based on relevant searching and fact finding both when I nominated for CSD and before opening the AfD this morning, you'll be very hard pressed to find anything which helps it meet the criteria. Thewinchester (talk) 00:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is what I was looking for eariler - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Thewinchester (talk) 02:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "leads me to suspect that you may have a possible conflict of interest in this matter" - be careful with possible slanderous comments such as that one. Delete the Ogalo article as I cannot waste anymore time on such matters, trying to do the right thing and expand WP. --Mikecraig 00:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Mikecraig, Thewinchester was citing Wikipedia policy. It was perhaps jumping to a conclusion, but it is absurd to suggest that rises to the level of slander. Please avoid raising distracting legal issues that do not help build consensus. --Dhartung | Talk 00:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Understood, if that user in question wants to challenge my neutrality or conflicts of interest, then just look at my edits, contributions..etc and see where it lies. --Mikecraig 00:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Per Dhartung, Wikilawyering is specifically frowned upon. I note that I specifically said that I "suspect that you may have a possible [[WP:|conflict of interest]]". You may not have a conflict of interest, but it just appears that way to the casual observer given your protectionist line on an article which does not and likely never will comply with Wikipedia policy, which is the core issue in this matter. Thewinchester (talk) 01:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. An unsourced article about a non-notable minor fast food chain. Would be willing to reconsider should independent sources be found. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 00:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I could find no sources related to this chicken shop through Google News or Google News Archive. Given that the article cites no sources, the article should be deleted. Capitalistroadster 02:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nomination from Thewinchester - esp as it is small and as per other editors mention, very few references or articles can be found. --Mikecraig 02:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Man, I would love to know the special way that the Australo-Portuguese make burgers. My imagination is conjuring up images of quarter-pounders garnished with tripe and squid tentacles. --Infrangible 02:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Very minor chain, not likely to have independent sources. Orderinchaos 02:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, a minor fast food chain. Perhaps when they have more sources available. Lankiveil 10:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete per WP:CORP and Wikipedia is not a directory. Zivko85 23:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; apparently good for a hangover, but far better sources are needed. Mikecraig, has a TV or newspaper ever done a focus piece on the company? John Vandenberg 00:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per Zivko Savin Me 05:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I CSD-ed this article initially. The reason was pretty much non-notability. I restored it at the request of the author, presuming he could expand it and state the importance. But it seems it won't pass VfD anyway, surely not at the present state. --Tone 13:21, 5 June 2007 (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.