Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delhaize Group


 * 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. (non-admin closure) czar ♔   17:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Delhaize Group

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The creator of this article just disclosed information via the Teahouse that he was updating and creating this article on behalf of his company.
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 20:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Here is the text of the message he left at the Teahouse:


 * How do I eliminate duplicate references?«
 * As a corporate communicator, I have edited an article about my company that now has the same reference listed multiple times at the end. It was my fault, and the errors were revealed in the error check utility. How do I prevent these multiple listings? Also, how often do I need to cite a reference? Certainly not with every statement, I'm sure. Thanks for any help you can provide, BBLean (talk|C|TB|) 3:43 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)
 * These are the responses of the teahouse hosts:


 * Welcome to the Teahouse, BBLean. See Footnotes: using a source more than once for how to combine the citations. However, you should be aware that Wikipedia strongly discourages paid advocates of a company from contributing to the page on that company; see Paid advocacy, public relations, and marketing. Your edits so far appear neutral and factual, but (after fixing the citations), you should probably stop, or risk having your account blocked. You can request changes on the talk page of the article. RockMagnetist(talk|C|TB|) 6:24 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)


 * Hello,BBLean. I highly recommend that you disclose your conflict of interest on your user page, which is now blank. Cullen328 Let's discuss it|C|TB| 6:44 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)


 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 20:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. If we delete every article that has a COI editor sticking their fingers in the cookie jar there wouldn't be much left to Wikipedia. If the COI editor is a problem, then the path is to get the user blocked, as listed in the quoted Teahouse answer and not to delete an article created 10 years ago. COI editor edits, according to the Teahouse answer author, "so far appear neutral and factual". Now, if the company isn't Notable then that would be a reason to delete for me. But, reliable, third-party published sources can be found for this WP:LISTED company. Stesmo (talk) 21:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong keep: Do you really think that the Walmart article has never been touched by one of its employees? At least this guy had the decency to out himself and while its prose style is not wonderful, I can't see miles of WP:POV pushing.—Brigade Piron (talk) 16:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 23:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 23:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 23:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: one of the largest Belgian companies and important internationally. Fix any problems caused by COI editing, but don't delete. Lemnaminor (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * So what we are saying is that the response to an article that appears to contain advertising is not a problem, and that the response should only be to block editors who confess that they are working on the article on behalf of their company. At least one third of editors who come to the Teahouse for assistance seem to have questions regarding editing their company's article at the behest of their boss. You should see how fast they get blocked and how fast they get their articles deleted. I find it quite painful to offer to help these people and then watch them get blocked because they were honest. I probably should confess that I am probably not very good at nominating articles to discuss for deletion. I really thought the guidelines spoke to the conflict of interest, regardless of the size or notability of the company. Notability trumps COI, I got it now. Please assume good faith on my part, I am considering this discussion, a true educational activity for me.
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 19:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * First of all, is not the creator of the page. Looking at their edits, it does not seem that they inserted advertising, but updated some references and key figures: . Personally, I think that is reasonable, although they should have disclosed their COI. It is a large company that easily passes WP:GNG: please consider withdrawing the nomination and help undo any advertising inserted by BBLean instead. --Lemnaminor (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. The nomination seems to have been made under the misapprehension that User:BBLean was the original creator of the article rather than, as the article history shows, having first edited the article about ten years after its creation, even if they then did so heavily. As it happens, I pretty much agree with User:Lemnaminor's assessment of User:BBLean's edits - but even if User:BBLean's edits were entirely promotional, the appropriate action would have been to look through the article history preceding those edits for a satisfactory version to which the article could be reverted, and only nominate the article if no such version could be found. Moral? WP:BEFORE should always include at least a quick look at the article history back to the beginning, and if there are versions in the article history than seem to escape the deletion rationale, nominators need to make clear why deletion is a better option than reverting to one of them. PWilkinson (talk) 17:28, 1 November 2014 (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.