Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Community Banana Stand


 * 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 keep. clpo13(talk) 22:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Community Banana Stand
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

This page is nothing more than advertising for an obvious Amazon brand marketing campaign. All the sources are rewritten press releases at best or covert paid marketing at worst, and this bleeds into the article which is filled with Amazons 'quirky' neologisms for workers and other 'facts' directly from the company, regurgitated without question. The article is unsalvageable, it is unlikely to ever have any value as a wiki page and as a result it should be deleted. Wikipedia is not part of Amazon's reputational washing machine. Macktheknifeau (talk) 17:20, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The Seattle Times, the Wall Street Journal, and GeekWire are all reliable sources. Passes WP:GNG with flying colors. Mlb96 (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Public relations releases made into articles aren't reliable sources. Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:14, 6 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep The nominator has provided no evidence that the sources are "rewritten press releases" or "covert paid marketing". The news articles are rather balanced, covering both positive and negative reactions to Amazon's campaign. Some people take their interpretation of WP:NCORP too far and think that anything that doesn't trash the company is corporate propaganda. Amazon is a well-known company and there is going to be organic interest from journalists and readers in what it does. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:09, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: For the record: the sources currently in the article might be what the proposer says. There are other sources available. —¿philoserf? (talk) 14:39, 6 November 2021 (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.