Talk:Argo Tea
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is about or directly concerns enterprises. It is proposed that the guidelines laid out in articles about ongoing enterprises be adhered to. Accordingly, unsourced or poorly sourced negative material should not be posted to this article or its talk page(s) and should be removed without hesitation. |
| This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects Click [show] for further details |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||
|
 |
This page was previously nominated for deletion.
Please see prior discussions before considering re-nomination:
|
Contents |
[edit] NPOV
This page seems to have a bit of a bias - it seems like it's advertising and pushing for Argo Teas. I edited a few small things to make it seem less like that, because the article itself is great, but I'd like other people to take a look and chime in. Thanks! Verloren Hoop 20:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC
[edit] TTT Response
Aside from the prospect of going public everything else is just passing along factual information gleaned in a discussion with workers (including management) at the store.
[edit] Questioning objectivity
Any article on a corporate entity is going to be a little bit of a sales pitch. Selling tea is what they do. I don't see an issue with it so long as they're not saying their better than anyone in particular or making specific offers or claims in the article.
[edit] removing objection
Given the last change removing the prospect of going public, I think I can remove the question of objectivity.
[edit] Yanksox neutrality objection
Yanksox, please tell me what statement you question the neutrality of. If it is the store projections, I spoke with management at a visit. All the employees will tell you about the 5th and 6th stores. It is possible that you might be correct in questioning the objectivity of 2007 projections because I am not sure if an it has been released to the public officially yet. Let me know if this is the only objection. Tony The Tiger 14:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sources
There are still not non-trivial published sources independent of the company. I am considering a re-afd. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. It has come along, but not at the pace that I had hoped. Has it been mentioned in any Chicagoland news sources ro magazines recently? youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 19:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- How many times are you going to afd it before the vote of no-consensus will matter? TheQuandry 22:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Not too many. Basically, as long as it continues to fail core WP policies. - CrazyRussian talk/email 22:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- How many times are you going to afd it before the vote of no-consensus will matter? TheQuandry 22:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] References and External Links added
I've added a number of independent references and external links. This clearly meets WP:V and WP:CORP. TheQuandry 20:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
