Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clover Stornetta Inc.

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clover Stornetta Inc.

Reads to me like a corporate brochure. Based on WP:CORP, I'm not seeing why it should be considered notable. Dori 08:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Dori 08:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, the article is reasonably encyclopedic (certainly not like a brochure) and the company might be notable per this reference taken from the article: [1], although that topic could use some more attention in the actual article. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• BTW, I think I identified the brochure at least some of it came from, and I added that to the talk page. So now we're also talking about WP:COPYVIO as well. Dori 21:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, I don't know what your problem is with it Dori...this is a large corporation for the Sonoma County area, and their company is largely growing. It is far from a brochure. If it was brochure site, I'd be trying to sell the product to you, not be talking about the company. Besides, the company is about dairy, so that's how I'm supposed to describe it as. Black Kat 18:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• My problems with this article are:

1. It sounds to me just like how you described it on the talk page: you read their website, took their description, reworded it somewhat, copied their logo, and then posted it all here. See WP:RS, WP:COPYVIO, WP:LOGOS, and probably a few others.
2. If you look at WP:CORP, it doesn't appear to meet any of WP's notability requirements. Which do you think it meets, and how?
3. It's an orphaned article -- no WP articles link to it.
4. Searching Google using the name of the article results in four pages. Again, notability?

If you think it's a notable corporation, explain why -- I'm generally a WP inclusionist, but I don't see anything here, on the talk page, or most importantly, in the article itself that makes me see how it meets any of the criteria for corporations. Add the copyright questions, and this article really has a ways to go before it's encyclopedia quality. Dori 04:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• The first part I wrote because it was very basic, and I tried to make it my own as much as possible, in hopes that it would be later changed by other people and myself to be more original, but this was all the reference I had for the moment.

Of course I took their logo. It's their logo...am I supposed to make one up at say it's theirs? I said it's THEIR logo. I would think that one is quite obvious.

You're wrong with the links...I had it link in the Petaluma article, and the Sonoma County article. If they aren't there now, someone erased it. I had it link to an article than mentioned Clo, as well, whether it was one of those two or one I forgot. I also gave it categories.

It's notable because it's a very well-known company in the area, and it's expanding throughout the state. It's very popular for it's health code and, considering it's becoming state wide and eventually possibly national, it's important enough. If there are documents at this site about episodes of cartoons, I would think information on a growing American corporation would be sensible. Black Kat 19:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This company obviously meets WP:CORP. You can't expect new editors to know all the Wikipedia policies. I would post the sources that I found, but they come up IMMEDIATELY on a google search [2], right below the web site, including an article by the Humane society, one in the SF chronicle, another by a prof at UC Davis, and at that point I stopped looking. Mangojuice^talk 20:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Mangojuice. --Bigtop 00:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it needs a bit of a rewrite, but keep per Mangojuice. --Wafulz 00:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Rewrite The article is unencyclopedic. Its just operating in Northern California, while being non notable to the rest of USA.--Ageo020 02:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Mangojuice. --Chris Griswold 05:24, 11 August 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.