Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cheeky Panda


 * 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 delete. Geschichte (talk) 09:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The Cheeky Panda

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Toilet roll company. Notability concerns with references seeming to rely heavily on coverage surrounding the company's crowdfunding efforts. Uhooep (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:31, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete There's nothing wrong with making toilet roll. But I doubt it makes us notable at this scale. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:13, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Updated article? I've added both sources and content, including questions about the environmental credentials - is this enough to keep it in? (PS: is this how I'm supposed to add my comments? My first time in this sort of situation.) CitLonLiv (talk) 13:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Justarandomamerican (talk) 02:27, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't see the notability here.Kolma8 (talk) 12:29, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi I am Chris the co-founder - it was brought to my attention today someone did the reasearch on our company. I've added Sunday Times Fast Track 100 Ones to Watch award which we got last week.  I am happy to provide and additional data and links to the content.  As a fast track company valued at over £50m it would be good to have a page and we are on track for IPO so it would be a shame to lose the research put together.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Forbes 212 (talk • contribs) 11:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read the welcome message on your newly created talk page with the included COI warning and instructions for signing your comments. Otr500 (talk) 15:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi I've deleted the talk item. I'll be honest I've used Wiki for 10 years now but I have never had an account or edited anything so I am not familiar with even how to correctly number and reference articles.  I'v always found Wiki super useful for its neutrality, some of my edits while based in fact might not be neutral enough.  So happy for someone other than myself to review and edit, its better that way. As a company with a strong ESG profile and high growth I think it would be a super useful example of how a 21st century company should operate compared to the old world economies.  It should sit well with the Wiki values.  I guess we are at the editorials mercy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Forbes 212 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per Nom and . Fails WP:NCORP and What Wikipedia is not. I have not tried the products. I would venture that almost everyone appreciates a good roll of toilet paper and some just take it for granted. To those I would suggest crumpling up a brown paper bag or newspaper, rubbing it together a bunch of times, and see how that works. Another option is just go to a store or station, when nature calls, and finding toilet paper equivalent to mild sand paper. However, this discussion is about the notability of a fairly new company, edited by new(er) editors that may or may not be WP:SPA's, and at least one that has a conflict of interest but maybe more. Wikipedia policy on advertisement and promotion: Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. Advocacy is writing from one point of view which will lack balance. The comments above hint at a likely impossibility of a neutral article.  -- Otr500 (talk) 06:50, 12 December 2020 (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.