Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dreyer Farms (3rd nomination)


 * 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   - Deleted at Author's request. This closure does NOT have any standing as to the notability of the subject or the consensus of the below debate - just a non-controversial deletion of a single-author article. - Peripitus (Talk) 01:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Dreyer Farms
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Farm which fails WP:CORP, no coverage in non-local sources. Two previous AFDs were closed as procedural keeps per WP:ILLEGIT due to the nominator being a sockpuppet of a banned user. Claritas § 20:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: Because the banning policy should not be involved in deletion discussions regardless of one's status of being a sock or legit. Rohedin (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Even I have to point out that this is not a valid reason to delete the article, and the account is a little suspicious too. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  belonger  ─╢ 21:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There is nothing suspicious about me, I am just a normal guy that has a passion for programming Linux distrbitutions and watches General Hospital from time to time. Rohedin (talk) 21:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A combination which is an extreme red flag, I must add.--Milowent (talk) 23:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:CORP. I see no evidence non-trivial coverage of the farm in independent, reliable sources. While it's unfortunate that the first 2 AfDs on the article were started by now-banned sock puppets presumably pursuing some sort of vendetta, that doesn't change the fact this article cites no independent, reliable sources. Yilloslime T C  21:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as it has seemingly no valid sources to establish notability. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  belonger  ─╢ 21:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete due to lack of notability—a local hero award is not sufficient—and lack of coverage in reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete A long-established business, but with no indication of anything of particular note - other than the Local Heroes award, which is rather, er, local. Apart from which, I note that three of the five awards of that went to places where the magazine "can be found", and that it is a readers' poll award. There could be more history in the business, but it's not in the article if there is. Peridon (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep A lack of references is a reason to add them, not delete an article. The findsources above offers possibilities for expansion and further improvement of this stub..  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Trivial, passing mentions of the farm or its owner do not demonstrate notability. Yilloslime T C  23:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:CORP quite comprehensively. MickMacNee (talk) 22:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep for now I understnd that the principal editor will shortly be adding some more information justifying the page's existance. I think he should be allowed time to do that.  Giacomo   23:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete- nowhere near passing WP:CORP. Reyk  YO!  23:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Definitely notable per frequent references in easily available online references. This historic farm has also been covered in offline sources and dates to 1904 and is recognized widely as significant. Freakshownerd (talk) 00:24, 2 June 2010 (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.