Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bay Lough cheese


 * 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. (non-admin closure) --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs)  20:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Bay Lough cheese

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Reason Jlonergan (talk) 10:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

This "article" is little more than blatant advertising for this small company. It reads like a blurb from some promotional material. It is a small local business near where I come from but it really does not warrant a Wiki article is it really isn't noteworthy outside of the locality.
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 27.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 10:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Please put the article back so that editors actually have a chance to address some of the comments made above. Seriously, 30 minutes between listing and deletion????  Nobody notified?   -- HighKing ++ 13:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Insufficient evidence of notability. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep The article fully meets the criteria of WP:N. It has significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources such as a newspaper, and a book on Irish cheese. Can the original proposer or another editor please point out the parts that are considered "blatent advertising" and "blurb for some promotional material"? All the content has been sourced and checked, but if there's stuff that is considered non-encyclopedic, that content can be addressed I'm sure. -- HighKing ++ 13:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Meets WP:GNG per and  pp. 68–69. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TNT.-- Laun  chba  ller  21:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't view WP:TNT as applicable for this article, because it certainly isn't "hopelessly irreparable" as per WP:TNT. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm also puzzled over why a self-described "staunch inclusionist" would argue that the article is so bad, it falls under WP:TNT. Care to explain a little more?  -- HighKing ++ 17:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep A significant looking award and a couple of sources. Passes wp:N (although not by much) and I strongly disagree with wp:TNT Neonchameleon (talk) 12:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per GNG. →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  23:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I do not dispute that the article is well written and put together and that it has references for the claims made. However, that in itself does not necessarily mean the article is justified. I do dispute the subject's noteworthiness as, as I already said, it is a fairly small "mom & pop" business of little note outside of the local area in which it is based. An article cannot be justified simply on the basis of it being well written and referenced - it has to be about something notable - small, local enterprises are generally not notable. If we allowed this article because sources are cited, then should we be allowing articles on every back street tyre shop and convenience store simply because they are mentioned in a few websites or newspapers? I think not. I feel the article's language is promoting the business by discussing the products it makes and pointing out that they won an award.User:Jlonergan 13:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The criteria for notability is pretty well documented in WP:N. Just because it's a tiny operation doesn't exclude it.  It's a very well known operation producing high quality products.  Because of this, they got noticed. And written about.  That's what makes it notable (as per policy).  And any small, local enterprises that are similarly written about in reliable sources for the products they produce will also pass WP:GNG.  If you find me a Mom and Pop tyre shop that gets the same amount of coverage as these guys, I'll write the article.  -- HighKing ++ 21:57, 7 February 2014 (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.