Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RationZ
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; if sufficient sources can be found, I will reconsider. Singularity 23:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] RationZ
No independent sources, fails WP:CORP Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 01:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom - poorly written; reads like an advert; not properly referenced. Shalom Hello 01:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: Seems to fail WP:CS and WP:CORP. Aside from that, I agree that it is poorly written, and written like an ad..- Rjd0060 02:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:ORG. Carlosguitar 08:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete as reads like WP:SPAM. --Gavin Collins 10:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep but Move - subject to references. Again I think people are getting a bit distracted by what is currently there and not thinking about what the article could become. Playing the WP:CSB card, the MRE's of the Iraqi Army are inherently no more or less notable than those of the British Army or US Army - subject to WP:CS. I'd have thought that Halal MRE's are in principle notable, and I can imagine that they're the sort of thing that would get independent sources talking about them (albeit possibly only in Arabic). The fact that there are very few producers of same is not important - we don't regard the jet engine article as advertising for Rolls Royce. I'd quite agree that the current content is not up to scratch, and this particular company may not be notable - but perhaps after cleanup it could be moved to Halal MRE or made into a section in the Meal, Ready-to-Eat article or something. As for the accusations of WP:ADVERT - given that the customers for these things are principally Armed-forces-employing-strict-Muslims, I can think of better places than Wikipedia for their adverts :-), so will assume WP:FAITH on that front. Yes it does need a cleanup. FlagSteward 16:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Subject to which references? None of the sources given in the article are independent, for all I can see. --B. Wolterding 16:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well that's what I was saying, that the current references are inadequate. The point of my post was to say that in principle I would guess that this is the sort of thing that someone could dig up refs for, even though there aren't any there at the moment, compared to the sort of commercial product which gets speedy-deleted, where there's obviously no hope of refs ever being supplied. FlagSteward 13:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Since the article has been around since January 2007, tagged with notability concerns, and no one has added better references, my guess would rather be that those references do not exist. --B. Wolterding 15:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well that's what I was saying, that the current references are inadequate. The point of my post was to say that in principle I would guess that this is the sort of thing that someone could dig up refs for, even though there aren't any there at the moment, compared to the sort of commercial product which gets speedy-deleted, where there's obviously no hope of refs ever being supplied. FlagSteward 13:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Subject to which references? None of the sources given in the article are independent, for all I can see. --B. Wolterding 16:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 10:01, 25 September 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.
