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. Taking into account the deletion review, it is likely that that the article may require cleanup to comply with WP:NOTADVERT; editors are encouraged to continue to improve the article (until all promotional wording issues are resolved). (non-admin closure) — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brusnika (company)[edit]

Brusnika (company) (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)

This was speedily deleted as advertising (WP:G11); Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 November 12 sent it to AfD instead. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. Sandstein 09:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 09:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 09:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Appears to be notable. I added translation of the reference titles. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral - borderline promotional. Needs work. Deb (talk) 09:54, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It has improvement opportunities, can be cleaned up and sources available. VincentGod11 (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2021 (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.