Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 April 20

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

20 April 2017[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Food Future, Inc. (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Unable to engage in conversation as to why the page was deleted. After suggestions were made the page was deleted without applying suggestions. I am affiliated with the company but am actively trying to get the page re-instated so that I can provide sources for an admin or other editor to review so that they can update the page as they see fit. After my suggestions were made the page was deleted. Sgj 524 (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted. It was deleted per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Food Future, Inc., which didn't have a lot of participation but was unanimous. It is STRONGLY suggested not to directly edit articles on any company you work for or are otherwise compensated by, as it would represent a serious conflict of interest. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Looking atthe now-deleted article, perhaps part of the reason for the limited participation was that the case for deletion was so obvious, given the overtly promotional nature of the article. DGG ( talk ) 15:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse AfD closure. Not much participation, but it was sufficient to delete under our guidelines. I can't see the article, but based on the conversation and the comments here, I doubt it would affect my comment here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Afd closure with recommendation for User:Sgj 524
I was looking at the Food Future Inc. article at deleted wiki.. The main reason why the article was deleted was its lack of reliable third-party sources. I suggest looking at these two Wikipedia pages: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and Wikipedia:Notability. Judging from the article at deleted wiki, it appears as if your company does important work and has a good management team. After your company has the necessary reliable third-party sources reporting on it and it meets the notability requirements, your company should be able to have a Wikipedia article. Your company was founded in 2015. If your company keeps plugging away and gets press from reliable sources about your achievements, it will make things much easier to have a Wikipedia article about your company. Right now, it seems as if this is a case of Wikipedia:Too soon. Knox490 (talk)
  • Endorse AfD closure. Article does meet Wikipedia:Notability standards. desmay (talk) 23:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Deletion review examines failure to correctly follow deletion process; it is not a venue to advance new arguments (or repeat old ones) that belong at AFD. Stifle (talk) 13:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Concurs with Andrew Lenahan.--AR E N Z O Y 1 6At a l k 05:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The article did not provide significant content about the company and failed to provide reliable third-party sources. Instead of being an informational article, it seemed more like a promotional article. Bmbaker88 (talk) 23:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.