Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Four Thieves Vinegar Collective

Four Thieves Vinegar Collective

Four Thieves Vinegar Collective (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)

I do not believe that this is a notable organization, and I further believe that this article was written for self-promotion. “Self-promoting nonsense” ought not become notable because someone ran a story once about self-promoting nonsense. For background, see this bit of criticism: https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/anarchist-drugs-all-yeahboy Captgouda24 (talk) 08:03, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, Organizations, and United States of America. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 08:25, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. Coverage from Vice, Science and Scientific American, spread over a period of eight years. That's the sustained coverage by Reliable Sources required to demonstrate notability. I doubt that the original author in 2018 had promotional intent. They included some critical coverage in their version and they weren't an SPA. Even if this had been promotional initially, the article has been edited by many other people since and nothing leaps out at me as promotional in the current version. I have seen a lot of actual self-promoting nonsense in my time on Wikipedia and it looks very different from this. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:42, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. This subject has clearly received significant coverage over a sustained period in reliable sources. I don't see any evidence that this article was written as a form of self-promotion, especially given the original version of the article written by the initial creator included quite critical information. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:01, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 00:09, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep This org meets WP:SIGCOV with sustained, multi-year coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. The nomination calls this article "self-promoting nonsense" without any critique of the sources in the article, which sounds close to WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasoning. — Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 00:47, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep As per conversation above. The organization clearly meets WP:GNG. I don't see how this is promotional. It's written in a natural tone and is supported by reliable sources with significant coverage.
• Keep Seems to have WP:SIGCOV and I found a few extra sources: [] [] [] []. Agnieszka653 (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2026 (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.