Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wild about fruit Company

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 wasKeep given that the delete positions where early in the discussions and that the keep positions were after the article had under gone further changes. Gnangarra 11:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wild about fruit Company

More Australian corpcruft for a procedural listing due to CSD tag being removed from article. Article is about a non-notable beverage producer that does not meet WP:CORP. It lacks any WP:RS, reads like a blatent advertisement, and is just one of many companies which works with the CSIRO each year on product development, so notability by association it does not achieve (particularly since there is no references to that work anywhere on the CSIRO site I can find). Thewinchester (talk) 00:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11. The article reads as a promotional piece. Not sure why this option was refused in the first place. Regardless it is not notable, privately held (which will make it difficult to source) and has no independent reliable sources. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 01:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - it was refused speedy as it does not read like blatant advertising. No reliable sources, though, that I can find; fails WP:CORP at this time. Neil ╦ 09:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC) Now a keep following some excellent work. Neil ╦ 19:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:CORP Orderinchaos 02:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Advertisement and notabilityUser A1 08:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, ad. Lankiveil 11:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete - Fails WP:CORP and appears to be an advert. Zivko85 23:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I could find three sources for this on Google News Archive [1] The Daily Telegraph piece was a short piece about its products available for sale in your supermarket. Capitalistroadster 03:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, a search on .gov.au finds [2] [3] [4]. Their products have a GI symbol. Specials in newspapers[5][6]. What is everyone seeing against this article that I cant see? John Vandenberg 04:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep this could be made into an interesting article. very stubbly atm. Keep it per above. [[User talk:Savin Me|Savin Me]] 05:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The sources above are either trivial in nature (other than perhaps Gannawarra Shire) or are paid spots such as the special in the Weekly Times and therefore not independent of the company. The South Australian Government gazette merely lists its containers for which recycling refunds apply. Not all mentions of a subject on a webpage meet WP:N requirements for sources establishing notablility "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.". -- Mattinbgn/ talk 05:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment What he said. (I'm lazy tonight) Orderinchaos 11:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note, article expanded and refs added. John Vandenberg 08:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The page is now expanded and well referenced. Recurring dreams 06:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. As the original creator of this article I think it should stay, with the improvements that have been made. Ansett 12:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article is well referenced. Company the subject of a case study in a university report for a government department. Assize 08:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment for closer - please note article has changed drastically since the majority of "delete" arguments (including my own) were made, and all comments since then have been for keep, suggesting the changes have made a big difference (see for yourself). Neil ╦ 19:24, 9 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.