Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carbliss


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. UtherSRG (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Carbliss

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails NCORP. Almost all of the sources cited here are promotional, sponsored segments or interviews with the founder published in local news sources. Other sources I've been able to find via Google and Google News are likewise sponsored content. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  03:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Originally closed at "soft delete", but contested at WP:REFUND. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  00:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies,  and Wisconsin. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Adding to my analysis, the sources cited at REFUND (which have yet to be added to the article), are more of the same. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:28, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete lack of sources with substantial intellectually independent coverage. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Primary_criteria criteria, which says:"A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."

New Sources      

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Limmji (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Since this is an article about a company/product, it is required to meet the notability guideline for corporations (NCORP), which has a higher standard than the general notability guideline (GNG). The articles you've listed do not meet that standard.
 * Regarding source 1, articles by Forbes "contributors" are not considered to be reliable sources, under both the GNG and NCORP. Additionally, source 1 is largely based on interviews with people involved with the company, making it not independent of the subject, and it reads as being promotional of the brand. Regarding sources 2-4, NCORP says: Additionally, source number 4 is effectively an advertisement, albeit laundered through a local news entrepreneur-of-the-week segment. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be great to hear from more editors. It would also be helpful to review recently added sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: per explanation above. बिनोद थारू (talk) 04:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * I'm a bit confused by the relist asking for more source analysis since I think I've addressed all of the new sources. In any event, they're all basically sponsored local news posts or interviews with the company. The one keep !vote (from the editor who created the article) hasn't substantively addressed why the sources meet NCORP. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, voorts, I would like to hear from other editors, I think it makes for a clearer consensus, one that is less likely to be challenged at Deletion review. But relisting a discussion doesn't prevent another closer from drawing this discussion to a close. I think I will let someone else handle closing this one. Liz Read! Talk! 02:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I thought you meant in general, not just from others editors. Thank you for the work you do and happy New Year! voorts (talk/contributions) 03:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete, fails WP:NCORP. I agree with voorts' source assessment. The local sources are also trivial - product launches, expanding into new markets etc. SailingInABathTub <b style="padding:5px;background:#3366cc;color:white">🛁</b> 13:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.