Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dick Smith Foods

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 per WP:SNOW. ExtraDry 11:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Dick Smith Foods

[edit] Dick Smith Foods

Dick Smith Foods (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

No assertion of notability and reads like an ad for the company. → AA (talk • contribs) — 11:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete -- mmm spam. /Blaxthos 11:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Damn, the picture is copyrighted! I was hoping we could send it to BJAODN. Enjoy it while you can. (Delete of course.) YechielMan 12:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Speedy keep and maybe tag with {{advert}} - although this article is about a company, I don't see it as blatant advertising. Dick Smith Foods has been a nationally recognised brand in Australia for years. Although popularity has declined recently, once N always N. WP:ORG. This article does need more sources, and not using just Ghits for my keep vote, [1] a quick search gets me 203 news articles. --Bren talk 12:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Article needs improvement, but this is a notable Australian company, started by a very well-known entreprenuer who has been widely covered in the media for his campaign for Australian owned and made food. --Canley 13:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Cleanup is not a reason for deletion and the company clearly passes WP:CORP, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N. Orderinchaos 14:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I think the company has cultural importance: apart from its connection to notable figure Dick Smith, its campaigns were very visible at launch in 1999 and "controversies" like Dickheads matches and the legal battle with Arnott's were widely covered in the Australian media. I do agree the article could use more sources and information, as it hasn't changed a great deal since I created it in 2004. -- Guybrush 14:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - No assertion of notability. The only reference/link is to the company site, spam.--Bryson 19:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, seems notable enough per User:Canley. Just needs improvement. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 20:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Well known Australian company founded by notable Australian. Capitalistroadster 21:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Extremely notable company established in a blaze of publicity by an independently notable person. Sources should not be difficult to find. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 22:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep recieved wide-spread coverage at launch. I think this is a victim to rising standards, yes the article now needs improving but 2 years ago it would have looked quite OK for a start-class article.Garrie 22:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Easily passes notability with dozens of secondary sources. I have added citations from some, and removed some unsourced bits. Kevin 00:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Very notable. Just needs improving. --Bduke 03:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep had quite a big impact on the Australian market for a while there, and it was a bit unique in what it stood for (and the profile it achieved) and it attracted quite a bit of attention as symbolic of a new push for Australian owned. WikiTownsvillian 09:35, 25 June 2007 (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.