Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Truth in Labeling

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 19:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Truth in Labeling

edit

This article was put up for speedy by User:Rd232 since it was created by banned user User:Andrew Lin. I felt that it would be better to get consensus to delete this since it's not clearly anything (maybe advertising). And, as the CSD page says, "This is slightly controversial!" gren グレン 09:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was User:Kiand who tagged it speedy delete (without an edit summary - naughty) and I fixed the external link and wondered in the edit summary whether it was worth keeping. Thanks for AfDing, Grenavitar - I was going to do this myself if it had stayed unspeedied a bit longer. Rd232 talk 09:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note Andrew Lin did create many pages claiming that, well, things would kill you if you ate them... which puts the legitimacy and notability of this magazine into question which is the reason for the AfD itself, besides just a banned creator. gren グレン 09:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Delete. It seems to have some notability; "Truth in Labeling Campaign" gets 17 hits in LexisNexis; the most recent being San Francisco Chronicle, 14 April 1999. They also had a court case on MSG labelling (Truth in Labeling Campaign, et al. v. Donna Shalala, et al. 1995; lost in summary judgement) which was mentioned by the Irish Times 1999. Rd232 talk 09:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    If kept it should possibly be moved to Truth in Labeling Campaign. Rd232 talk 09:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if he's allowed to contribute, he's not really banned. Otherwise, it would be, "You're banned, unless you do something good." Someone can recreate the article later, if they want. -- Kjkolb 09:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can see grounds for that policy to avoid this situation, but that doesn't seem to be current policy, does it? I don't know, there just seems something fundamentally unwiki about judging content purely by who created it. If the creator can/should be blocked for whatever transgressions that for me feels like a separate issue. Rd232 talk 13:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If I understand correctly, this was created after he was banned. I don't know what the policy is, but what is the purpose of banning if he is still allowed to edit after he is banned? Everyone's articles are cleaned up or deleted on their merits, so it wouldn't be any different than if he were unbanned. -- Kjkolb 15:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to its creator. It should have been speedied, he is -not allowed edit-. --Kiand 13:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable and promotional. Google shows only 96 links to this site. It is a non-notable site and I believe the reason for creating it was to promote a point of view. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article is an orphan.Geni 13:21, 28 October 2005 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Truth_in_Labeling&oldid=1138756667"