Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beverage Digest


 * 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. No arguments for deletion, not even from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Beverage Digest

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I declined the speedy deletion nomination, so I'm bringing it here for further evaluation. I remain neutral. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I will expand the article. I found a fair number of news items quoting the magazine, which seems to be an authority or at least a respectable source of information on the soft drinks industry. Have to be careful to ensure it does not turn into a promotional article though. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep – Trade publications are always tough to establish notability. In this case, I looked at Google News, as shown here  to see if there were any in-depth pieces on the publication itself.  Sorry to say, I was not able to find any.  However, I did notice that all major news publications did quote from  Beverage Digest.  If we apply the same standard that we apply to creative professionals, in that “…The person (company) is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors’’ a case for their inclusion could be easily made.  Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 15:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability (media) applies. Two of the criteria for magazines are: 3. are considered by reliable sources to be authoritative in their subject area, 4. are frequently cited by other reliable sources. The refs added establish that these criteria are met. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I created this article as a bare-bones stub because the publication was being used as a ref on several Wikipedia articles. Didn't do more than that because of the difficulty of finding sources discussing the publication despite the fact that it was being extensively cited by us and others, and I wanted to avoid making it look like a press release or a corporate directory. Thanks to those who have improved the stub. Carolina wren (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment – By the way, Nice Job. ShoesssS Talk 18:23, 27 August 2009 (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.