Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joel Warady Group (2nd 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   speedy delete under G11. This was a word for word identical recreation of the previous version, and unfortunately Multixfer's improvements were only cosmetic in nature. lifebaka++ 13:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Joel Warady Group
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This company is not notable in anyway. A search brings up nothing but press releases or non-notable industry coverage related to Warady and is just a recreated article. TheLastStandOfPie (talk) 03:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Joel Warady Group is the chief marketing company for several notable brands including Enjoy Life Foods (the market leader for Gluten and Allergen-Free foods), Mirage Oral Care (UK brand) and is the chief strategist for Tula Foods (an emerging market leader for whey-protein based yogurt). The company is fairly small and PRIVATELY HELD, which would explain why there are few articles written soley about the Joel Warady Group. Joel Warady, the owner, is the brand itself. He is an extension of the company. TrioRuleYou (talk) 03:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * keep and improve and Comment The nominators first edit was to AFD this article. I have no comment on the article but I think this appears to be a bad-faith nomination. Also, it does look like the comany is marginally notable... there are a couple of independent third party sources, I've found. &lt;&gt;Multi-Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 03:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The last bullet point of WP:BEFORE specifically recommends that IP users create accounts if they wish to nominate articles for deletion. Was your suspicion of bad faith based solely on this being TheLastStandOfPie's first edit, or is there other evidence? Olaf Davis (talk) 11:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Question Is this page any different from the one deleted before? It still reads like an advert/brochure and is primarily self referenced. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 05:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 05:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: it looks like the article creator, asked at WP:AN for the previous (deleted) version of the article (which was attributed in the first AfD discussion to ). There was some possible sockpuppetry involving K.duan2009 and . And now, TrioRuleYou is using the same (rather ineffective) statement as did K.duan2009, to justify a speedy keep. All of that seems suspicious. TheFeds 06:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong delete Spammy article with little indication of notability. I hope the closer reads the above keep votes and weighs them appropriately. See also the previous deletion discussion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Leaning towards delete. I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but I sense either sockpuppetry or some sort of off-wiki collusion to get this subject placed here.  My spider sense simply doesn't feel right on this one.  --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete I was probably somewhere in the 4,000s of non-automated edits when I nominated this article for AfD in Feb 2009, so whether 1 or 8,000, sockpuppet or COI, SPA or admin, or whatever other acronym or statistics can be attributed to editors, the article itself still has to stand on its own. And this one still does not. The Seth Godin book and WOMMA are directory entries, expertclick is a link to a brochure, spoke/twitter/facebook etc. links are obviously not useful, and the reuters article is just two paragraphs in a larger article about something else. A variety of searches on the company, principal and clients didn't bring up anything more helpful for establishing notability. "Brochure copy" and "bad faith" can be easily overcome, but no way, no how are these poor links going to save this article this time around, or the next time this article is retrieved and recreated. Nominator did the article a favor by forcing another AfD discussion, but it probably did not need or deserve one. Flowanda | Talk 05:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and Salt, Both A7 and G4 apply too, so it could be speedied. I held off on commenting earlier as I wanted to see the book, but it's just an ebook that anyone can get listed on by clicking a link! No references to prove notability and my Gnews search doesn't show anything either. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 06:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per G11 and G4. The language of the article is wholly promotional, and the references are insubstantial and self-sourced. The user who created this already has a copy of the previously-deleted article in user space at User:TrioRuleYou/JOEL, and I would advise them to perform a complete rewrite there, before attempting to reintroduce it into article space. TheFeds 06:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The Reuters reference is the only reason I didn't tag this a speedy G11 when I saw this on newpage patrol. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 11:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy. Just another snake oil outfit. NVO (talk) 12:34, 20 June 2009 (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.