Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kuma's Corner

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 keep‎. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 07:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kuma's Corner

Kuma's Corner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Keep agree that this article needs improvement, not necessarily draftification but some toning down of promo language. Based on search results I added additional links regarding a 2020 controversy - this isn't exactly

WP:CORP suggests non-local coverage of controversies as possible significant coverage. Oblivy (talk) 09:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Spent a few minutes reducing promotional language; I think it's better now. Oblivy (talk) 02:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The most egregious
  WP:PROMO I have ever seen. If that was removed, there would be nothing left. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 09:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Promotional tone is not a grounds for deletion, as long as the article has encyclopedic content. You might want to look at

  WP:ATD draftify. This article is heavily sourced from reliable independent media, and it contains negative material which is not a characteristic of blatant promotion. Oblivy (talk) 12:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  My position remains unchanged. Delete or TNT. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 12:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 10:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify There's definitely enough coverage to meet
  WP:GNG, however the article is very promotional in tone and language. I would be willing to change my vote to keep if said promotional issues are fixed. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  @JML1148 Kindly have a look at it now. Per above, I don't see promotional language as grounds for deletion (or draftify) on a properly sourced article that isn't blatant promotion and meets notability. At this point, it may be a bit over-sourced (lots of "best of" citations, which establish notability since they are largely national media, but they get in the way a bit) but I have done what I have the time/attention to do for now. Oblivy (talk) 03:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Oblivy: I appreciate the changes that you've made that have toned down the promotional changes, so I'm willing to change my vote to Keep. I'd say maybe the second paragraph in the History section could have a bit of work? JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 06:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, I appreciate this. I took a brief swipe at it and took out one piece of puffery, but I think I'm done with this article for now unless someone else comes in and adds back a bunch of breathless praise. Oblivy (talk) 01:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @JML1148 - do you need to strikeout one of your !votes? ResonantDis_tortion 15:21, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I do, I forgot to do so earlier! JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 22:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep sufficient sources to meet notability, and article content and tone has been improved by Oblivy. ResonantDis_tortion 10:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets our notability guidelines. The problems with promo are covered by our policy:
  WP:SURMOUNTABLE. Lightburst (talk) 14:14, 20 May 2023 (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.