Talk:Purezza

Contested deletion
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... I have kept the text written in a neutral format, and used only independent sources (except perhaps the link to Purezza's cookbook, and this can be removed). I have aimed to collate news on Purezza in a history-like format based on the independent news available. I have not used subjective or biased sources, nor have I included reviews or opinion pieces on the brand. I would be happy to address the issues with the article but am unclear on what these are. I have also used NPOV, and am not clear if that's where the issue lies. I understand I am prone to errors here though – this is only my 2nd published article, along with some edits and contributions to other articles. Further clarity would be welcomed if you feel the article can be amended rather than deleted. --Fatbobcat22 (talk) 15:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Pure advertising is a judgment call, but the article is hardly neutral. Industry awards tend to be promotional fluff with little value towards WP:CORP and WP:CORPDEPTH.  The rest of the article is routine fare pumped up with "best of..." type articles. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Understood, is the article salvageable if a) the awards are removed, excepting perhaps the 2 most significant ones (National Pizza of the Year and the World Pizza Championship, which itself has a Wikipedia page) and b) citations and cleaned up? Fatbobcat22 (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't tag the article for speedy, Praxidicae did. I got the G11 notice because you restarted the draft from an orphaned redirect.  The rewrite needs to be fundamental in that editor's opinion.  My observation: the content needs additional non-trivial objective content about the company, its operations, history, etc. from sources that satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. • Gene93k (talk) 21:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)