Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eggology
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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Eggology
Somewhat passes notability with 15,000+ GHits; however, a company that makes egg products is not exactly something I'd call "encyclopedic". --tennisman 02:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, you never know! an article I nom'd for AFD recently was kept and they make glass windows!? I don't eat eggs, but regardless, i'd say this company is N/N per WP:CORP = Delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Librarianofages (talk • contribs) 02:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - the page appears to be a copy/paste job from some other wiki. Did a bit of cleanup. -mattbuck 02:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Google News confirms that newspapers across the US have run blurbs on them. Nothing really significant on their own, but the volume suggests notability. Burzmali (talk) 16:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's possible to go on to their website where there is a section called "press", it lists countless articles where they have been mentioned.. but alas, by conservative estimate I would say that around 99% would be either payed advertising or pretty much trivial. I would guess that the same would apply to the majority of the google results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Librarianofages (talk • contribs) 20:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Borderline keep. A glance around Google New seems to indicate that they appear to have invented "salmonella-safe" eggs. (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong on this.) Huge deal in the 90's. - Revolving Bugbear 20:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete. The article looks like spam to me. None of the references in the article say anything about the company itself, and while it has had a small amount of coverage in news sources it seems a bit too thin on the ground. Snthdiueoa (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)- Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Coverage is coverage, and it does seem that some note has been taken of this business, which produces tangible goods, some of which are sold directly to consumers, so it's the sort of business that should attract that kind of coverage. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep: I have significantly expanded and reinforced with citation the content of this article; compare the version nominated to the current version. It does appear to pass WP:CORP, but not in the blaring way that larger or more mainstream companies do. Much of the press on Eggology exists in niche industry publications related to its product lines; this will be the case for many relatively small but nonetheless notable firms. I don't tender this as an excuse, but as a factual statement. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- P.S. It does still need a lot of work, no doubt about that, but I think it passes minimum muster for retention. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- It still reads a bit too much like a press release to me. However the references do seem to imply that it has achieved something of note. I'll change my nomination to weak keep, but it also needs to be tagged with {{newsrelease}}. Snthdiueoa (talk) 12:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not quite sure why you say that it reads like a press release. It is true that the coverage is not deep yet, but that is partly a consequence of this being a private vs. public company and partly due to the niche product focus mentioned above. Press releases tend to focus on one event and are POV, and I don't think this article falls into either of those bins. If you are referring to the relatively positive tone, I don't think that having a positive tone is POV if the available source material is treated in an NPOV manner. Is there another factor than these that make it read like a press release? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- P.S. I've removed two additional sentences from the Products section as simply providing sources for items in the infobox seems sufficient. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- It still reads a bit too much like a press release to me. However the references do seem to imply that it has achieved something of note. I'll change my nomination to weak keep, but it also needs to be tagged with {{newsrelease}}. Snthdiueoa (talk) 12:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- P.S. It does still need a lot of work, no doubt about that, but I think it passes minimum muster for retention. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:22, 22 January 2008 (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.
