Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chocolove

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. Owen× ☎ 18:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chocolove

This was tagged {{db|The entire article is POV and unverified; looks like spam.}}, which I generally agree with. Not a speedy, though. —Cryptic (talk) 07:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• Rich, satisfying Delete. Advertising. Squiddy 10:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Fine, not a speedy. It is, however, still blatant advertizing with few objective facts. Nihiltres 17:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Spam! Jtmichcock 02:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
• The company is legitimate with trademark on the brand name. If you allow for Cadbury and Hershey, why would you now allow for other chocolate bar companies? We have edited the text to ensure it was less "sales" and more fact. The intention was not advertising or spam. Chocolove 4:21pm ,23 November 2005
• Keep, Maybe. This IS a real company. They DO seem to have a somewhat unique product, they WERE in the NYC Chocolate Show and they DID get a rating of best in show from Phil Lempert, food editor for Today (ref:http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9966060/page/3/). According to Lempert, they are high-end gourmet product that uses "single origin", I guess that's like beans from one crop or something -- kind of like a single-malt whiskey I guess. Article also says they will never sell high volume because of this. Question: would a very-high-end but therefore low-volume whiskey, wine, cigar, microbrew beer, etc. make WikiPedia? If not, then this should not; if so, then perhaps this should. Yes the ARTICLE BODY is very poor and is PR, but if the SUBJECT is Wikipedic then the proper solution is to tag the article for improvement rather than delete, at least that is my understanding. If User Chocolove had written a better article with history, picture, more about unique aspects of product etc, then we might not be having this discussion. But he didn't, so it will probably his loss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Herostratus (talk • contribs) 01:06, 24 November 2005 (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.