Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Hollender


 * 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 Seventh Generation and no consensus to delete Jeffrey Hollender.-- Kubigula (talk) 04:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Jeffrey Hollender

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

Recommend deletion of the following for WP:NN, WP:SPAM: Student7 (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)



I am also nominating the following related pages for WP:NN and WP:SPAM:
 * Student7 (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   (for --Eastmain (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.   --Eastmain (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep both. The awards and other accomplishments, as reported in multiple reliable sources, demonstrate notability. --Eastmain (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep both (snowball in the case of 7th Generation). Clearly notable - substantial coverage in many major reliable sources, nationwide distribution of products.  There is encyclopedic material in both articles.  Please review deletion guidelines - we improve weak articles, don't delete them.  Wikidemo (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete A news search for Hollander shows nothing but press releases and self-written blogs; on this basis he is not notable. As for the company article, in my eyes it reads as blatant advertising, but it seems notable based on and . The list of awards is a burden on the article; all companies receive awards, and though I have respect for this companies uniqueness, the wholeness of the article makes it spam—there is no balance in it; it is obviously written in by a profound supporter or insider of the company, and completely fails to fall into the category of encyclopedic articles. The detail of the list of products smells even worse. If someone should succeed at removing this profaneness I would of course change my vote as to the company, but right now it is very close to CDS#G11. Arsenikk  (talk)  23:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Both I don't think that either article should be deleted because they are both of significance. They may both need to be worked on but there is value in both of the articles. Daniellealexander23 (talk) 22:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep 7th, move worthwhile material here to subsection on Hollender, eliminating 3/4ths of the material under hollender
 * Delete Hollender. The 7th page reads like a list, the biographical information, in 4 or 5 sentences would break the overly list like nature of the page.PB666 yap 03:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep for 7th generation, an extremely well known brand. NPOV needs to be looked at with respect to the reviews of its products. Im not sure  whether or not Hollander has any independent notability. DGG (talk) 05:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep both Product list is similar to Burt's Bees. Hollender (note spelling when searching for articles) speaks extensively -- I've seen him a dozen times (and will go to conferences just to hear him speak).  Expert in the field of natural products and sustainable business practices.  (Cmiddings)


 * 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.