Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Briggs Original


 * 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 delete. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Briggs Original

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

De-Prodded. This is a small startup (founded 2016, first product in summer 2017, distribution mainly around Boston), has a few bits of coverage (mainly NE), clearly lacking WP:CORPDEPTH Icewhiz (talk) 20:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep- The company is new and not widely distributed but is gaining serious recognition for not only the beverage but for their music festival. I've added more sources including an article in nationally distributed Chilled Magazine, an article in the Boston Globe, and a vuz video that was shared by news outlets online and on tv throughout the country. The company is new, but notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bojaque (talk • contribs)
 * - newly founded startups are very rarely notable. All companies try to promote themselves (particularly if selling to consumers) - I see some local coverage (of how 20 somethings who met at high-school founded a small beverage company) and some coverage in specialty magazines. How does this satisfy WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH?Icewhiz (talk) 06:09, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * - I would argue that your downplaying the coverage. There is significant regional and national coverage including tv news, none of which is the company self promoting but rather independent coverage. To me the 14 sources I included constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources" WP:GNG. Lastly I would make the point that how long the company has been around for doesn't necessarily have any correlation to its notability, and that there are other wikipedia pages for small companies with far fewer credible sources and far less depth of coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Bojaque (talk • contribs) 17:47, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can be convinced otherwise, but at the moment, all I'm seeing is coverage from publications in the Boston area, as well as some trade publications. I'm aware that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS on Wikipedia, but each article must stand on its own merits irrespective of what else Wikipedia might have. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete ,,, My grandma could think of a better idea for an article here, spam without hope. Hey you, yeah you! (talk) 18:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 6 December 2017 (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.