Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LesserEvil

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. Sandstein 11:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LesserEvil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I proposed this page for deletion for not establishing its notability under WP:ORGCRIT last week but recently another user objected by removing the tag. Nonetheless, all the sources, as can be seen from the table below, fail to meet the necessary criteria because they are almost all press releases or otherwise non-independent. I've looked for other sources that meet the required standards but found none.

Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
No Press releases are not independent sources No Press releases are non-reliable Yes No
No Relies almost exclusively on company filings No Relies almost exclusively on company filings ~ The whole stub is dedicated to the company but it is barely two short paragraphs. No
No Relies on press releases and quotes No Relies on press releases and quotes Yes No
No Press releases are not independent sources No Press releases are non-reliable Yes No
Link has WP:ROTd away Link has WP:ROTd away Link has WP:ROTd away ? Unknown
Link has WP:ROTd away Link has WP:ROTd away Link has WP:ROTd away ? Unknown
Yes No apparent connection with company No It is a blog dedicated to promoting dieting methods and recipes. No Only mentions one WP:PRODUCT of the company's No
While the link has WP:ROTd away, it seems to have been a mere inclusion in a profile list No While the link has WP:ROTd away, it seems to have been a mere inclusion in a profile list No While the link has WP:ROTd away, it seems to have been a mere inclusion in a profile list No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Jtrrs0 (talk) 10:25, 19 October 2022 (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.