Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farris (mineral water)


 * 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The result was  nomination withdrawn with consensus to keep. Non-admin closure. -FrankTobia (talk) 01:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Farris (mineral water)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The article reads like an advertisement for a brand of mineral water. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Nomination withdrawn In view of the excessive wikifying that went into this article following the initial AfD nomination, I am respectfully withdrawing this from consideration -- as it stands today, this is not the article that I nominated. I would also like to use this moment to salute the various editors who took the time and energy to improve this article -- and for keeping the discussion civil and pleasant.  Have a cold glass of Farris on me! :) Ecoleetage (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Outdent response to Gidonb -- but I would like to choose how, where, and when I put my time into edits. I feel that AfD has largely become a place where editors bully other editors into "improving" articles of encyclopedic value under threat that if they don't, the articles will be deleted. I read and researched this in Norweigan--with a translator, I don't even know how to spell the language, much less read any. I could have been working on tropical viral pests of agricultural crops, instead. Wikipedia is missing hundreds of important, world-wide topical articles in this area. Instead I researched this article. This was a waste of time. --Blechnic (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * keep or whichever template I should have used I'm a newbie to Deletion Requests at Wikipedia in English and I haven't read this projects guidelines on articles concerning commercial products. Still adding a comment here. I noticed this article being created as a copyedit from Farris (which is about the lake this water is named after) so it is not created as advertising for what that's worth. The mineral water Farris is indeed the oldest mineral water in Norway, and a hundred year old mineral water brand in a country where bottled water (of any kind) were hardly sold before 1990 seems notable to me. Finn Rindahl (talk) 00:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It seems notable enough, if not to have its own article, to have a mention in the article on Farris. Based on my limited knowledge of Norwegian, the article looks like a translation of the Norwegian Wikipedia article. That article mentions the mineral water in the article on the lake. Bart133 (t) (c) 01:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - As Finnrind points out and from my web-research, the brand is very notable. The text should be improved, but is not promotional. I moved this text out out of the Farris article, where it clearly did not belong. I strongly object to merging it back, as proposed by Bart133 above me. Merging into Ringnes is a reasonable option, but - due to the importance of the brand - keeping is preferred. gidonb (talk) 01:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - For additional background see User talk:Gidonb. gidonb (talk) 02:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Looks notable enough for me, and not really written like an advertisement. I find no reason to delete. -FrankTobia (talk) 02:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep meets WP:N, and is not written as an ad. A very popular brand in Norway, I suggest the nominator withdraw this AFD. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 03:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment May I suggest that the article's author(s) please add some independent references, as per WP:RS, to the article? The Thomson Financial reference is not easily checked, and my own search came up bare. Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Google book search throws up loads of results. I will add some to the article. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 04:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I would like to suggest closing this AfD per WP:SNOWBALL. Other than the nominator, I do not see one person who proposes to delete the article on the largest mineral water brand in Norway. Also, if no one wants to delete this article through a regular AfD, why was it proposed for speedy deletion before the AfD? gidonb (talk) 13:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article has improved and appear to meet WP:N. Good job Ecoleetage and others. &mdash; Maggot Syn 13:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a well written, sourced, proper small article on an internationally known product. If this is what we're deleting, I wonder what we're keeping?  "Reads like an ad" has a tag, and it's not AfD.   --Blechnic (talk) 19:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment (From a Commons-guy visiting another project) Isn't there anything like speedy kept at en:wikipedia...?? ;o) Finn Rindahl (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Finn, I believe it is informal, but clear cut cases like this one get closed rather quickly. Sometimes people refer to it as WP:SNOWBALL. gidonb (talk) 20:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Blechnic, are you are referring to the template? gidonb (talk) 20:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, when an article reads like an advert, add that template, and clean it up yourself, rather than proposing AfD if the subject is notable.  It doesn't read like an advert to me, though.  Also, I cheated and looked it up in Norweigan, it's notable enough.  --Blechnic (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: cheating: If you by "looked it up" mean no:Farris (mineralvann) that was created by someone at Norwegian wikipedia after this article had been created... ;o) Finn Rindahl (talk) 20:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Blechnic, thank you! It is not so much the AfD that bothered me, but the unnecessary speedy proposal beforehand. I got into this whole water business by error, as I was cleaning the lake Farris article and stumbled into a section that clearly did not belong in the article. It is a fact that the spammers are a pain - as a frequent spam patroller you scan can my user pages for proof to this fact (lots of vandalism and angry reponses) - but it also raises questions on the flip side: How many good and important texts are deleted through these DBs? gidonb 21:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Finn, some content on Farris mineral water had been in the en.wiki Farris article since its start and in the Norwegian version almost since its start (since August 2005 to be precise). Regards, gidonb (talk) 23:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There are so many bad articles that need deleted, but it seems there is a subset of Wikipedia editors who are determined to delete articles, whether they are bad or good or encyclopedic, they just want to delete articles, as if there are points for it. Sometimes it's more effort to nominate for deletion than it would have been to improve the article, this tells me these editors do not have Wikipedia's best interests in mind.  Sometimes editors nominate articles for deletion that have over 10,000 google hits, the subject has written a book, has patents, and is talked about in the news.  The nominator just guesses the subject is not important enough.  It's a monumental waste of time, imo.  Yes, how many good and important articles have been deleted through prods, through speedies, through AfDs?  --Blechnic (talk) 03:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me disagree this time. Ecoleetage is a very positive contributor to Wikipedia. He made a mistake, as we all sometimes do. The important thing is that we learn from our mistakes. It is true that we wasted some time here, but I am sure that it was not totally in vain. gidonb (talk) 13:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Because of this, Sources have been added to the article, which admittingly looked like spam earlier. Therefore it isn't exactly a wate of time. However, I believe this should be speedily kept. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 14:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It did not look like spam and was a clear copy-edit. Yet even when in doubt, the rule is do not speedy. Speedy keep - definitely. gidonb (talk) 14:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello Blechnic, please do not give up on the tropical viral pests of agricultural crops. Your contributions are much appreciated! Regards, gidonb (talk) 22:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I know no one really reads it, but, in fact, there is some interesting research coming out of African agriculture.  --Blechnic (talk) 23:50, 22 June 2008 (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.