Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pi-nella

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pi-nella

Pi-nella (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Possibe hoax. I can't find any information on this anywhere. adavidw 01:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. No assertion of notability (the company isn't even mentioned) (CSD A7), reads like an advertisement (CSD G11), possible hoax. Iced Kola^(Mmm...) 01:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:CORP. MER-C 03:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Esoteric product with no notablitiy. Also reads like an Advert. z ε n  08:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete; may want to then consider redirect to Lou Piniella, even though it might not be that plausible as a typo. --Nlu (talk) 14:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep providing the article is rewritten (I started on this) and information about the company and the underlying university research is provided. Information about the actual marketing of the product would be welcome too. LHOON 20:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete currently fails WP:N it gets some weak ghits but most are not in english, so fail to support its notability for en.wikipedia.org it may be appropriate in another language or at a later time in English. Jeepday 22:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and all delete comments Tuvok ^ ^{Talk | Desk | Contribs} 12:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks like advertising to me. Not notable, anyway - it's just another packaged fruit, for goodness' sake ! WMMartin 16:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: one should note that this is Seshunkk's first article, and that he has added more information the last few days, a few steps on the long way to a good article. So please no inconsiderate deletion so he can learn and improve, and not be put off and leave wikipedia. (I stand to my position of weak keep). LHOON 22:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with LHOON that every consideration should be made to support new editors. The problem is that WP:BITE does not cancel Wikipedia policy and WP:V#Burden_of_evidence clearly puts the burden on the editor. As there is no Copyvio issues the editor could take it to User:Seshunkk/sandbox and work on it, and I would support this. Keeping in mind that the article has to meet Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines if/when it re-emerges as an article. Jeepday 02:58, 6 February 2007 (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.