Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bold Rock Hard Cider


 * 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)  ProClasher 9 7  ~  Have A Question?  14:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Bold Rock Hard Cider

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not notable, and does not meet NCORP guidelines. No secondary sources at all, and a quick search only brings up the company’s website and various social media profiles and product lists.  ProClasher 9 7  ~  Have A Question?  18:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  ProClasher 9 7  ~  Have A Question?  18:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  ProClasher 9 7  ~  Have A Question?  18:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: I am tired of plainly false statements about sources by those who proposed deletion. There may be reasons to delete. I will not reward false statements nonetheless. —¿philoserf? (talk) 13:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Just to make it clear, the “no secondary sources” portion was accurate at the time of the creation of the deletion discussion and does not take into account any recent sources that may have been added since this discussion was created. I apologize if that caused any confusion.  ProClasher 9 7  ~  Have A Question?  15:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * indicating no effort to search for references rather than looking at the text of the article at the moment. such efforts are insufficient. —¿philoserf? (talk) 15:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - The Forbes article is actually not acceptable since its by a contributing writer, however, i have found and added more in-depth sources, such as and . Nominator needs to do better research! There are a lot more news on this company. Lesliechin1 (talk) 02:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: You two do make some very valid points. As someone who is still relatively new to AfD, it’s not fair for me to rush decisions based solely on the content of an article. Knowing what I do now, I honestly don’t know why I nominated this for deletion (although I’m sure the promo-edits by sockpuppets had some influence on that decision). Looking at the article now, it’s clear that this subject is notable enough, so I’m going to close this so that no other editors have to waste their time on this.  ProClasher 9 7  ~  Have A Question?  14:18, 21 October 2021 (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.