Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Connecticut

Points of interest related to Connecticut on Wikipedia: Outline – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – To-do

Deletion Sorting Project
(talk) Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts
v t e

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Connecticut. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Connecticut|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Connecticut. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Connecticut/archive

PopUp Bagels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails

• Keep - Disagree with the assessment of the sources. I'm not sure how any source would cover a restaurant/bagel franchise, other than how it has done. — Maile (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly, I would prefer to stay out of the below issue of questionable sourcing. But it should be noted that article creator User:Bubblegum111 is a student editor at Northeastern University, and was supervised by a Peer counselor on the project. One of the peer review items is a section on "Sources and References, Guiding questions." While there does not seem to be any details on that last one, I'm willing to assume good faith on both that editor and their process. However, an editor below seems to think the sourcing was promotional. I prefer to assume good faith that both a university student and supervisor in the same city as the business would know what is planted hype and what is not. — Maile (talk) 16:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't. I rely on long experience of bad decisions made by Wikied folk that resulted in their articles being to sent to Afd. This article is a highly promotional advert that breaks the Terms of Use, on a business, where all the information is straight from the CEO. Not from any journalistic process or discovery. Its mostly verbatim from press-releases and the company website and hearsay. scope_creep^Talk 08:45, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the comments editor odeletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Connecticut. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep References 1, 2, and 7 seem enough to clear
  WP:NCORP. Article is quite promotional, though, and needs a lot of cleanup to achieve a more NPOV. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:33, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply
  ]

They are PR and advert or press-releases. There is no reference 7. Ref 6 is a funding round which fails

WP:ORGIND, as well. scope_creep^Talk

• Comment The core of it is that your so used to seeing this crap paid-for journalism, that you think once it appears in NY Times then it somehow valid. Its not. It paid-for advert. The business is too new to be really notable with associated secondary sources. The fact the guy has paid $40k-$60k for the written up story/advert, which is 2021 rate (don't know what it is now) seems to be not worth thinking about. The Entrepreneur is exactly the same. A paid-for advert. scope_creep^Talk 14:07, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't think the NYT wrote paid adverts. Mrfoogles (talk) 05:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Look for the advertisements costings website. scope_creep^Talk 06:44, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am the student's instructor and tend to be an inclusionist. That isn't to say the article couldn't be improved, but I think it is a good start and additional sources will continue to be published as the company continues to expand. - Reagle (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly clear keep -- article is well-sourced to several reliable sources. The rationale for this proposal seems to be that the NYTimes coverage is paid-for, with no clear evidence of that? Unless there is clear proof all the sources used in this article were paid for by the business, it seems worth keeping. Even if the NYTimes article was paid for, to be honest it's likely not false, given that it's the NYT. Mrfoogles (talk) 05:14, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your rationalising it and not looking at the evidence. scope_creep^Talk 08:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'd like to find out who is being paid to put this advert on Wikipedia. scope_creep^Talk 08:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This article was created by a new user as part of a WikiEd course, there's no reason to think anyone is being paid or intentionally trying to be promotional. Yeshivish613 (talk) 00:21, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then why is the article so heavily promotional and biased, almost as though its been purposly designed. Its a brochure advertisement plain and simple. Does it say anywhere when you come on to Wikipedia that its an advertising platform? When I signed up for Wikipedia, did I expect to see 100% content company sources and words taken directly from the words spoken from the company ceo and copied verbatim. I find it really odd that the editor who wrote this doesn't understand the process or the policies their writing under. scope_creep^Talk 06:44, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even the rationale at User:Reagle/proposed topics#Candidate Topic #1: PopUp Bagels sounds breathlessly promotional. scope_creep^Talk 06:59, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This is a pretty clear pass of
  WP:NCORP, the NYT and Boston Globe articles are not paid advertisements, just significant food reviews of new popular restaurants. That's 2 right there. I don't know enough about the Nation's Restaurant News website to make a judgement on it for establishing notability. This
  is a student newspaper but I think it is still useful as it doesn't have any quotes by the founder and is clearly not paid advertising either.

I took a look at the article when you tagged it and that version was quite promotional, but it is a very different article now. Moritoriko (talk) 03:11, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi everyone. I am the editor/creator of this article, and I wanted to chime in. As a Wikipedia novice, the process of drafting, creating, and revising an article has been daunting. Thank you to those who have contributed to this discussion, I appreciate all of your feedback! Like my professor @Reagle said, I know this article has been docked for its promotional tone, and I have been working hard to edit my sources and work so it can align with Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. I frequently posted in the Teahouse for counsel, and received a lot of valuable help. As this is an upcoming business, I understand that there are not as many notable sources as existing restaurant chains. However, I can assure that this was written in good faith, and I am committed to continuing to improve my work.

Bubblegum111 (talk) 13:48, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]