Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brothers Cider

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. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brothers Cider

Brothers Cider (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Subject does not meet guidelines of WP:CORP. Advertisement. -Nv8200p talk 00:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep and Rewrite: Easily meets the guidelines of WP:CORP through this article in the UK Daily Telegraph, Daily Telegraph Article on Brothers Cider together with honourable mentions by BBC and Manchester Online. Does need a rewrite to NPOV though.Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 01:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep: I wrote this article but i'm hardly an expert writer so it needs someone to have a go at this. I dont work for the company of any of its subsiduary or anyhting and didnt mean this to be advertising. It's just as worthy of a page as Magners is. While it needs a rewrite to remove my bad prose it certainly meets the notability criteria. --Mercifull 11:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete The Daily Telegraph article even says they have never been in a national newspaper. Seems like there is potential to be notable, I just don't think they are quite yet. If it is kept it needs a good rewrite to NPOV it up. Joe Jklin (T C) 17:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep & Rewrite; Just needs some minor rewriting to come more fully in compliance. --Mhking 20:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep & Rewrite down to a stub (looking at this version); It needs more than a minor re-writing: the 'contact information' section should disappear; the pictures should be whittled down to a logo only; the text needs to be tightened all around; and the Daily Telegraph piece needs to be incorporated - it is not right now ... in my opinion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete currently fails WP:CORP as there is only coverage by a single independent source. -- Chondrite 06:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  Easily meets WP:CORP. Just because I could only find one online resource originally doesn't mean its not notable. The company and its product have been on the BBC "Points West" news and also on the regional ITV channel. Here are a few more independant links: manchester online, Runner-up for Best Design & Packaging in The Drinks Business Awards, Wholesaler Magazine clipping about the BPC advertising campaign --Mercifull ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 11:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. The additional sources are pretty trivial, nothing substantial enough to base an article on it. -- Chondrite 17:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, i guess it's just unfortuinate that there are very limited online sourced to cite for you. I wasn't aware that something could only be notable for an article if it had a massive online prescence no matter how many times its been on regional TV stations or newspapers and how many festivals it sponsors. --Mercifull ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 11:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

There's no requirement that sources be online, just that they are reliable, verifiable, independent of the company itself, and coverage is not trival. The idea is that there needs to be enough independent coverage of the company to support a proper article. If the company sponsors festivals, then that should be mentioned at the festival article(s), and can be included in this article (if kept), but it doesn't establish notability under WP:CORP. -- Chondrite 21:38, 13 December 2006 (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.