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 speed keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 07:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miran Pastourma[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A "charcuterie" in Athens (or any other city) is possibly not notable enough to have a WP article. Therefore I propose the deletion of this article. E4024 (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is very well sourced and do not see any reason for it to be deleted. Hovhannesk (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references in the article easily establish notability. DoctorKubla (talk) 17:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DoctorKubla, even the Greek WP has not considered (I understand, as there is no interwiki) this "charcuterie" so notable. If you may kindly look at my last edit in the article perhaps you can see the reason why the inventor of the article wanted to introduce it to WP. Maybe it is not about pastourmas and soudjukis. (Were they like this in English, these strange Turkish words?.. :-) --E4024 (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Your arguments about the Greek Wikipedia are irrelevant. The fact is there are multiple independent reliable sources which clearly establish the notability of this famous establishment. If you don't understand that simple fact you have no place nominating anything for deletion. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When you say If you may kindly look at my last edit in the article perhaps you can see the reason why the inventor of the article wanted to introduce it to WP. Maybe it is not about pastourmas and soudjukis. First noone "invented" anything. You invent terminology to insult other editors. Proudbolsahye is the creator of this interesting, DYK-winning, notable article, not its "inventor". And yes the Armenian Genocide, which you reverted, is a part of the Miran pastourma back story and it is notable and it should be told. Nothing wrong about that. But your curious comment may reveal the real reason why you nominated this clearly notable article for deletion and why you are so against Proudbolsahye. So the Armenian Genocide was the reason ...why the inventor of the article wanted to introduce it to WP.. Just that simple and well-referenced sentence: ...refugee of the Armenian genocide, who managed to escape to Constantinople from his his native Kayseri bothered you so much that you first tagged it and then, after I provided a citation for it, you deleted it and wanted to also delete the whole article because of it and accuse its creator of "inventing" the article. Can you listen to yourself? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Verifiable article, meets WP:Notability standards. Macedonian, a Greek (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. Clearly bad faith nomination from a user who tried to speedy delete the same article before and got reverted. User should be blocked to prevent further disruption from bad nominations. He should also be banned from proposing other articles for deletion because he clearly does not understand the AfD or any other deletion criteria. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Once again, this is a bad faith deletion proposal who has requested a speedy deletion earlier (resulted in decline). In addition to what I have discussed in a previous deletion proposal by the same user, he has continued to propose deletions and speedy deletions in 3 Armenian/Greek related articles in a matter of 12 hours (Animal name changes in Turkey, Harutyun Bezciyan, and now this one). Once again, I insist the user respect Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and the Wikipedia:Five Pillars. There is no question that one of the first Pastourma sellers in Athens is notable (let alone the prizes and medals they have won). Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proudbolsahye I try to avoid responding to nonsense not to heat up discussions unnecessarily but if you always make mistakes (like those you do about sources) I have to correct you. I had proposed speedy discussion of Harutyun Bezciyan on 26 January. Today is 30. Which 12 hours? I will add something more. --E4024 (talk) 19:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Should we remove Nathan's Famous?? The nominator's bias is exceedingly clear here. His recent attempt to remove Miran Kourounlian's back history,[1] indicates E4024's true intent. I agree with Dr.K's proposal, with the addendum to have E4024 sanctioned under Wikipedia:AA2. This is not the first time E4024 has tried to remove information and references he does not like, under false pretences.[2] --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Certainly someone is being harassed here. Next time: Propose banning me from "participating" in deletion discussions. --E4024 (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Comment: I agree with Kansas Bear. The nominator has already been warned under ARBAA2 and ARBMAC. These politically motivated and tendentious nominations have got to stop. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to point out it is in no way considered a bad faith nomination to XfD an article after a declined CSD. The two processes handle very different aspects. CSD is a speedy deletion of an article that lacks apparent notability from reliable sources whereas an AfD can include articles that have reliable sources but do not meet notability guidelines such as WP:CORP and WP:ROUTINE. Also, the argument about Nathan's Famous is in no way related to this discussion. Notability is established article by article. Lastly, Nathan's Famous food is a publicly traded company on the NASDAQ per WP:LISTED so ultimately an incomparable argument. I'm not exactly sure of E4024's intention's but it is bad faith to assume bad faith on solely the grounds of the nomination. Mkdw^talk 19:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment. I would like to point out that E4024's reasoning for deletion was, "A "charcuterie" in Athens (or any other city) is possibly not notable enough to have a WP article." Yet his first action AFTER proposing this article for deletion was the removal of "Armenian Genocide" from the article. Where is your response to that?? The article has sources and is concerning a business. Just because Nathan's is NOW a publicly traded company is irrelevant. All businesses started somewhere. This is just E4024's attempt to sanitize Wikipedia of the Armenian Genocide. No amount of "good faith" will change that. IF you have a problem with my statements, I strongly urge you to report me. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment From WP:CORP: An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. It is clear that the article easily meets the criteria of WP:CORP because the coverage is significant and the company is clearly established as notable by multiple reliable sources. Therefore this nomination is spurious. Look also at the nominator's vague arguments which are a clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT because they are not based on any guideline or policy. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between arguing the points and merits of wiki-policy and calling someone out on bad faith for a nomination because they their CSD nomination was declined. WP:SK has very clear guidelines for disruptive nominations, but I would strongly hesitate to suggest this was blatant vandalism considering no clear-cut signs in other AfD's or general contributions. Albeit some rather questionable removal of content but nothing exemplary from normal edit disputes. It would appear this editor's first steps into AfD and wiki-policy only started this month. Rather best to explain to them the reasons this is a clear keep case against their nomination than bite them. Also, I think you are confusing my comment as an endorsement for E4024's nomination, which it is not. My comment is however an oppose to the rational that this was a bad faith nomination because of a declined CSD. Mkdw ^talk 20:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no confusion. You stated WP:CORP and WP:ROUTINE none of which apply here. Therefore I assumed you may have been confused as to the propriety of this nomination. As WP:BITEing anyone please check how many times the nominator has attacked Proudbolsahye on many fronts. Hardly an innocent newcomer this nominator. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CORP and ROUTINE were merely my examples of policies that people discuss in AfD's. In the context of "AfD can include articles that have reliable sources but do not meet notability guidelines", when explaining the difference of CSD against XfD in general. I did not state in any regard that these had anything to do with this particular nomination nor were these argumentative points that this nomination should be compared against. I could have cited WP:BLP or WP:CRIMINAL. If you have troubles with E4024's civility, you can always report it at ANI. Mkdw ^talk 21:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your clarification regarding the policies which you quoted. I take your point. As far as reporting the nominator, I know that this spate of unjustifiable nominations as well as other controversial actions by this editor have to end, one way or the other, simply because they are so disruptive. But that's for another place not here. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mkdw, the assumption of bad faith is not applied solely and specifically towards this deletion proposal but of all deletion proposal the mentioned user has done. For more information and details regarding these deletion proposals, please read my above comment in my keep vote. Thank you. Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't directing it at any one particular person, nor am I familiar with the controversies outside of this AFD. I simply wanted to point out that it is not bad faith to nominate an article for XFD following a declined CSD. I chose my wording careful in stating 'solely' to preclude arguments that would be based on other facts or notability discussion. Mkdw ^talk 20:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dr. K. and Kansas Bear. They clearly stated the motivation behind this nomination. --Երևանցի ^talk 22:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can anybody know the "motivation" behind anything? (Do I know the motivation behind your acts?) I say this company or "charcuterie" or whatever it is is not notable enough; I may be right or wrong. You'd better mind commenting on the necessity of keeping this article or not. What is your argument in pro the article here? --E4024 (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't seem to concern you. See Dr. K. and Kansas Bear's comments. Those are my arguments. --Երևանցի ^talk 23:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Comment: You said What is your argument in pro the article here?. Are you serious? Have you read the article before nominating it for deletion? This is one of the best cited articles in Wikipedia. And you are still asking the editor to supply a justification for keeping it? What is your policy-based justification for nominating it for AfD? Can you enlighten us? Because your opening statement for this AfD surely doesn't. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Greek/Armenian articles E4024 has tried to delete all in a matter of a month (This is just for reference):

Hovnatanyan family
Animal name changes in Turkey
Harutyun Bezciyan
Araksi Cetinyan
Sarkis Antikajian
Miss Globe Organisation (he is using this deletion proposal to ultimately delete Araksi Cetinyan
Armenians of Dersim (which has been successfully deleted because I just transferred the data of the article since I felt transferring the data on relevant Armenians of Turkey article would be better since it gets more hits)
Zahrad
List of Cyprus islets
List of regions of old Armenia

This excludes his attempted bans on Greek and Armenian users. Proudbolsahye (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep - The topic passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include, but are not limited to: [3], [4], [5], [6]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Significant coverage in reliable sources. Meets every notability guideline out there. WP:GNG, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:SNOW. Athenean (talk) 04:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not much to add. --79.160.40.10 (talk) 05:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.