Cacique Cheese – G11 speedy deletion endorsed. – Sandstein 00:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Cacique Cheese (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) page does not contain "advertising", it was a simple history of a company that exists similar to many others currently on wikipedia Delijim (talk) 22:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] This page was added as a general reference to an existing company that I have absolutely no affiliation with. There are several other companies in the same industry with current wikipedia pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borden_Cheese http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kraft_Cheese http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorrento_Lactalis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saputo_Incorporated Also, there are companies in the same industry with current wikipedia pages that are much smaller in size than Cacique: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castello_cheeses There was no "advertising" on the original page, just a brief history of the company and a link to the company's web page, which appears to conform to all of the pages listed above. Please reverse the speedy delete. Thank you Delijim (talk) 22:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] Comment over the years I must have seen 100s of DRVs which start out like this and as a rule of thumb it doesn't bode well. The status of other articles is not significant, the question is purely about this article so concentrate on that. I can't see the article (it's not in the google cache) to assess if the unambiguous advertising criteria fits, but it'll rest on that and that alone. (Note it's possible the product does "deserve" a page, but the one created was just "wrong" for an encyclopedia, this deletion will have no bearing on any future article which does meet the correct criteria) --62.254.139.60 (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion - the article contained some claims such as "number one brand of Hispanic cheeses and largest fresh cheese maker in the United States" which require an independent reliable source, and there was an unencyclopedic phrase of "the ultimate authority, the very best and the pinnacle of experience". Looking at google news, the company exists, and has some, but not much coverage. Overall, I think deleting the page was a reasonable decision, but removing the claims without independent reliable sources and removing the unencyclopedic content would have also been ok. PhilKnight (talk) 23:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. It may be possible to create a neutral, notable article on the subject, but this ain't it. Starting with nothing is better than starting with the existing text, although it could be userfied to someone who plans to write an article. Wily D 08:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review . Technically the claims made there are a claim to importance, but in the absence of sources, I doubt most admins would take them very seriously. You're welcome to rewrite the article with some good references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. Please be aware that when a relatively little known company tries to claim equivalence to the best known manufacturers in the world, as are the first two of the ones mentioned, it tends to encourage skepticism. The other two articles could probably use some improvements, but that's another question. DGG ( talk ) 22:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion. This stub appears to have been cribbed from the firm's website and might also qualify as a copyvio. In three sentences, it manages to make the following unsourced claims: "number one brand of Hispanic cheeses", "largest fresh cheese maker in the United States", and 'the name "Cacique" signifies...the very best and the pinnacle of experience.' A proper encyclopedia article might be possible on this subject, but in its form when deleted, it served only as brief company press release, whether or not that was the author's intent. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] Comment I'm preparing to recreate this article from scratch. The company is, from what I can find, notable, and was involved in an epic trade secret battle which it won against another manufacturer. The current version by contrast could use some tender loving WP:TNT. Mangoe (talk) 14:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] I would invite comment over whether we want to put this under a different article name, say, Cacique (company) or the like. Mangoe (talk) 14:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] If you believe the primary source of notability is the company, then yes Cacique (company) is better. Cacique cheese, Cacique Cheese and Cacique (cheese) should all be blue links though, either as an article or as a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 12:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Cacique Cheese – G11 speedy deletion endorsed. – Sandstein 00:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

page does not contain "advertising", it was a simple history of a company that exists similar to many others currently on wikipedia Delijim (talk) 22:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This page was added as a general reference to an existing company that I have absolutely no affiliation with.

There are several other companies in the same industry with current wikipedia pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borden_Cheese

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kraft_Cheese

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorrento_Lactalis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saputo_Incorporated

Also, there are companies in the same industry with current wikipedia pages that are much smaller in size than Cacique:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castello_cheeses

There was no "advertising" on the original page, just a brief history of the company and a link to the company's web page, which appears to conform to all of the pages listed above.

Please reverse the speedy delete.

Thank you Delijim (talk) 22:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment over the years I must have seen 100s of DRVs which start out like this and as a rule of thumb it doesn't bode well. The status of other articles is not significant, the question is purely about this article so concentrate on that. I can't see the article (it's not in the google cache) to assess if the unambiguous advertising criteria fits, but it'll rest on that and that alone. (Note it's possible the product does "deserve" a page, but the one created was just "wrong" for an encyclopedia, this deletion will have no bearing on any future article which does meet the correct criteria) --62.254.139.60 (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - the article contained some claims such as "number one brand of Hispanic cheeses and largest fresh cheese maker in the United States" which require an independent reliable source, and there was an unencyclopedic phrase of "the ultimate authority, the very best and the pinnacle of experience". Looking at google news, the company exists, and has some, but not much coverage. Overall, I think deleting the page was a reasonable decision, but removing the claims without independent reliable sources and removing the unencyclopedic content would have also been ok. PhilKnight (talk) 23:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. It may be possible to create a neutral, notable article on the subject, but this ain't it. Starting with nothing is better than starting with the existing text, although it could be userfied to someone who plans to write an article. Wily D 08:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review . Technically the claims made there are a claim to importance, but in the absence of sources, I doubt most admins would take them very seriously. You're welcome to rewrite the article with some good references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. Please be aware that when a relatively little known company tries to claim equivalence to the best known manufacturers in the world, as are the first two of the ones mentioned, it tends to encourage skepticism. The other two articles could probably use some improvements, but that's another question. DGG ( talk ) 22:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. This stub appears to have been cribbed from the firm's website and might also qualify as a copyvio. In three sentences, it manages to make the following unsourced claims: "number one brand of Hispanic cheeses", "largest fresh cheese maker in the United States", and 'the name "Cacique" signifies...the very best and the pinnacle of experience.' A proper encyclopedia article might be possible on this subject, but in its form when deleted, it served only as brief company press release, whether or not that was the author's intent. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm preparing to recreate this article from scratch. The company is, from what I can find, notable, and was involved in an epic trade secret battle which it won against another manufacturer. The current version by contrast could use some tender loving WP:TNT. Mangoe (talk) 14:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would invite comment over whether we want to put this under a different article name, say, Cacique (company) or the like. Mangoe (talk) 14:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe the primary source of notability is the company, then yes Cacique (company) is better. Cacique cheese, Cacique Cheese and Cacique (cheese) should all be blue links though, either as an article or as a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 12:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

*Four more Simpsons* images** – Please can we defer this while the image I just relisted (FFD File:Robotic Richard Simmons.png) runs through FFD as I suspect it will come back to DRV before we have a resolution. Once this has happened we will have a much better idea how to deal with these files and can discuss how to list them to avoid having DRV flooded with cut/paste nominations. Thanks. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
</ref>:File:Bart's Comet.png (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (article`\|`XfD`\|`restore) File:The Simpsons 5F24.png (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (article`\|`XfD`\|`restore) File:AllSingingAllDancingTV.jpg (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (article`\|`XfD`\|`restore) File:File:MaggieAynRand.png (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (article`\|`XfD`\|`restore) File:Robotic Richard Simmons.png has been "relist"ed. Like that file, each had two "keep"s, but the administrator, who is now retired, closed it as "deleted". No need to further explain this rationale for review. --George Ho (talk) 05:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] Response Actually, there is. The simple fact that he's retired now doesn't somehow invalidate his closes, nor does it justify the inclusion of non-free media. Each piece of non-free media has to be justified on its own merits, not with a blithe catch-all like this. What about these particular images requires review? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] Since we can't see images, we might depend on arguments made in original discussions. Also, this discussion would result the same as the other review. Same rationale, same analyses, same closer, etc. What else am I missing? --George Ho (talk) 06:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] Overturn all Same rationale as below: if there's a reason that unanimous non-nominator keeps can be legitimately closed by an admin as delete, then something is very broken with the community input process. Jclemens (talk) 06:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] You mean "above"? You may remove this reply if corrected. --George Ho (talk) 07:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] No. He means "below", in the other DRV on this subject.—S Marshall T/C 10:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Four more Simpsons images – Please can we defer this while the image I just relisted (FFD File:Robotic Richard Simmons.png) runs through FFD as I suspect it will come back to DRV before we have a resolution. Once this has happened we will have a much better idea how to deal with these files and can discuss how to list them to avoid having DRV flooded with cut/paste nominations. Thanks. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

File:Robotic Richard Simmons.png has been "relist"ed. Like that file, each had two "keep"s, but the administrator, who is now retired, closed it as "deleted". No need to further explain this rationale for review. --George Ho (talk) 05:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response Actually, there is. The simple fact that he's retired now doesn't somehow invalidate his closes, nor does it justify the inclusion of non-free media. Each piece of non-free media has to be justified on its own merits, not with a blithe catch-all like this. What about these particular images requires review? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Since we can't see images, we might depend on arguments made in original discussions. Also, this discussion would result the same as the other review. Same rationale, same analyses, same closer, etc. What else am I missing? --George Ho (talk) 06:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn all Same rationale as below: if there's a reason that unanimous non-nominator keeps can be legitimately closed by an admin as delete, then something is very broken with the community input process. Jclemens (talk) 06:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean "above"? You may remove this reply if corrected. --George Ho (talk) 07:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - No. He means "below", in the other DRV on this subject.—S Marshall T/C 10:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Mobileye – PROD restored. Anyone is free to renominate for AfD, but this is not a job for DRV – Jclemens (talk) 04:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Mobileye (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) Page was deleted, I contacted editor who had a few reasons, after correspondence he explained the main issue was "Notability" and he is unwilling to restore the page. Mobileye is a very well know company in its field (collision avoidance systems) in fact if you search for Mobileye on Wiki you will find many articles with the name in it, the company is a pioneer in the industry. and should be on WIKI. Please undelete the page.
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Mobileye – PROD restored. Anyone is free to renominate for AfD, but this is not a job for DRV – Jclemens (talk) 04:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Page was deleted, I contacted editor who had a few reasons, after correspondence he explained the main issue was "Notability" and he is unwilling to restore the page. Mobileye is a very well know company in its field (collision avoidance systems) in fact if you search for Mobileye on Wiki you will find many articles with the name in it, the company is a pioneer in the industry. and should be on WIKI. Please undelete the page.

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.