| Revision as of 16:40, 9 November 2007 editSir Joseph (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers19,854 edits →Shwartzman Etrogs: adding afd vote← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:14, 9 November 2007 edit undoYidisheryid (talk | contribs)5,331 edits →Shwartzman EtrogsNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| *<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. </small><small>] 07:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)</small> | *<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. </small><small>] 07:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)</small> | ||
| *'''Delete''' NN company. Information is also ]. 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. --] 09:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' NN company. Information is also ]. 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. --] 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 shwartsman esrog is not the same as others.--] 11:37, 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 shwartsman esrog is not the same as others, and yes to clarify it is the most notable esrog than all other brands.--] 11:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' Non-notable. We have standards here, and the article on this company currently fails those standards. -- | *'''Delete''' Non-notable. We have standards here, and the article on this company currently fails those standards. -- | ||
| ] 16:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC) | ] 16:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 18:14, 9 November 2007
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 shwartsman esrog is not the same as others, and yes to clarify it is the most notable esrog than all other brands.--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)