Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tandoor Chef (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   merge to Deep Foods. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Tandoor Chef
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm completing the nomination for User:DGG. I've nominated it for speedy deletion as a promotional page, but also a near carbon copy of the version that was deleted in the prior AfD. I wanted to finish this nomination in the slim chance that it is declined, as I also believe that the product/corporation fails notability guidelines. Other than brief mentions, there just isn't anything to show that this company/product is notable enough to merit an entry. I'm honestly not sure why it made it through AfC. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   09:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per my argument above. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   09:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 09:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 09:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect to the parent company Deep Foods. There doesn't seem to be anything worth merging that ain't already on the parent company page, but the parent company is seemingly notable, so outright deletion seems inappropriate. Wily D  10:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree a redirect would handle it, if the original article history were first deleted, so as not to keep the promotional material around.  DGG ( talk ) 10:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm cool with a redirect, although I'd lobby for a deletion of the history since I'm somewhat concerned that the original editor would return to un-redirect the article if the history remained. That they attempted to have this re-added in October, about two to three months after the previous deletion, shows that they would have a somewhat high chance of returning to re-create the article in some form or fashion. There's no way to really stop them since a complete salting would be overkill at this point, but deleting the history would somewhat discourage re-creation. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   10:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm skeptical that deletion the history would be significant there, and at least two of the sources from this article aren't used in the Deep Foods article, so keeping them handy for anyone who wants to improve it seems sensible (though one's behind a subscription wall, so I can't see it). Wily D 10:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge / Redirect to Deep Foods There is not enough here to justify a standalone article. The parent article for Deep Foods would benefit from more detail, and merging the content of this article into the parent -- with the elimination of promotional tone and puffery -- would improve the parent article. Alansohn (talk) 15:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Selective Merge to Deep Foods. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:24, 19 December 2013 (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.