Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 00:22, 1 May 2022

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. Sandstein 23:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Shwartzman Etrogs

Shwartzman Etrogs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article was set up as a prod a few days ago by User:Shuki out of concern for WP:COI, WP:N. Most of it is certainly self-serving self-advertising violating WP:NOT#ADVERTIZING, but there is a small amount of useful information that should be merged into the main Etrog article. IZAK 07:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Merge (redirect) and combine summarized information into Etrog article. IZAK 07:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 07:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete NN company. Information is also WP:OR. The only information that might be able to merge to the etrog article, or perhaps create a legitimate article on its own, is if there is documentation of the existance of this 'ordang' variety, hence the original prod. --Shuki 09:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep even if it is a company it is still a different subject, we can have 2 articles on Pepsi and on coke since they are different although they are both cola companies, keep in mind that a schwartzman esrog is not the same as others, and yes to clarify it is the most notable esrog than all other brands, since it is seeds from the esrog that the biggest Posek of the last generation used, and when it comes to be mehader on such a mitsve people do only settle for the best. this is written in all Yiddish media and unfortunately i cannot find it online to source it--יודל 11:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. We have standards here, and the article on this company currently fails those standards. --

Avi 16:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Save the data and delete the article. Yossiea 16:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, it doesn't appear to meet notability standards. --MPerel 22:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Have any independent sources discussed this company? Best, --Shirahadasha 01:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Answer: yes but they aren't available online--יודל 09:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't disqualify them off the bat. If the sources show notability, that is plenty good. What are the sources you are referring to? --Eliyak T·C 05:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

for instance before yom tov sukos i read the whole article here translated word for word in a Yiddish magazine called Ztiet-Shrift published in new york area monthly, this claims are not new to me because i read this numerous times in many Jewish media throughout the years but the aren't online--יודל 13:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

An independant source discussing a company does not make it notable. This backyard farm must pass WP:CORP. --Shuki 18:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

in this case it is notable because the media not only discuses it as a product but they discuss the fame of it, the history at length of it, and every detail of its clients and so fourth.--יודל 12:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

On-line sources are not required. However, we need citations that would enable someone to potentially look the article up and check the reference. A cite needs to contain an issue date for a newspaper or magazine (month and year for a monthly) and a page number. I'm afraid that assurances that there are articles or references to a periodical without identifying a specific issue are not reliable. Best, --Shirahadasha 05:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I did identify the specific issue and it was a front cover story. so it is indeed reliable--יודל 12:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, Yidisheryid, that is your personal opinion. Since you cannot provide a copy of the issue, we have no idea if it is a credible magazine, a credible article, or merely a paid advertisement for a backyard farm. --Shuki 18:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Shuki it isn't my personal opinion since i have only told you the name of the magazine the issue the date and the page. For the record it is Shuki's personal opinion that the article is a paid ad, we have a very clear absolute idea that it is indeed a credible magazine and every respected library has copies if u really want to read it, for somebody to say that the new york times magazine has a paid article instead of a normal article is his personal opinion not mine.--יודל 22:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yidisheryid, I never said that. Read what others type slowly and surely before accusing. --Shuki 19:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Shuki. Rami R 22:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Without a cite a delete seems the only option. Best, --Shirahadasha 21:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

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.