Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finless Foods

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. (non-admin closure) Cheers! // 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 07:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Finless Foods

Finless Foods (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)

Problems with WP NCORP: the coverage about Finless Foods seems to be mainly based on primary sources and company press releases rather than significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Passing mentions and WP:MILL Also WP PROMO: The page reads more like a company profile or press release, rather than an encyclopedic entry. Edit.pdf (talk) 06:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Declaration of interests As the original creator of the article in question on 9 December 2021, I hereby declare that I have no financial or other relations with the company in question. I have never even communicated with them. As a matter of fact, around the same time I wrote articles about similar start-ups that may well be considered their "competitors"; I was just writing about the field of cellular agriculture in general. I haven't edited the article ever since. It seems to me that the 24 February 2023 edit by Harmonic arrangement (their only edit ever) does represent an WP:SPA intervention for WP:PROMO purposes, which is unacceptable and should be reverted. Rather than deleting the article in its entirety, restoration of the 26 August 2022 revision seems to me a fine solution to this issue. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and California. AllyD (talk) 07:57, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have removed the reference (and the section it was verifying) which cited Finless.com, trying to make it slightly less susceptible to accusations of COI or some such. I am not currently convinced that the subject passes GNG or NCORP; may be best to redirect it to List of cultured meat companies or some such. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 13:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Plenty of coverage on Google Books.
  • Plenty of coverage on Google Scholar.
  • Mainstream newspapers:
    • [1] The Washington Post
    • [2] The Guardian
    • [3] The Atlantic
    • [4] i (newspaper)
    • [5] San Francisco Chronicle
  • Mainstream television networks:
    • [6] BBC
    • [7] CNBC
    • [8] CBC.ca

  Etc. I think this will suffice. Most of these sources apparently already existed on 9 December 2019 when I created this article, I just hadn't used them (yet). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  PS: [9] The New York Times has a passing mention of Finless Foods as one of "the key players" in the cultivated food business. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:59, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No !votes
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cheers! // 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 15:05, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per sources found above: the subject passes WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, even if the article itself might need some work for WP:NPOV. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources listed by Lindsay above which show SIGCOV from high-quality RS. Aszx5000 (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources listed by Lindsay. They clearly show that WP:GNG is met from reliable sources. The prose needs work for WP:NPOV, but that can be fixed. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 00:04, 4 June 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.