Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celtic Sea Salt


 * 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. Courcelles 15:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Celtic Sea Salt

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Commercial brand name with no claim of notability. A search for coverage of the product has only turned up trivial mentions, press releases, and marketing claims. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete A3 - no content of any note. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 04:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: I thought of tagging with speedy; but the edit history shows that past editors who have attempted to convert the article into a redirect pointing to sea salt have been undone - so thought it best to get a more formal evaluation by the community of the viability of this as a stand-alone article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep - but is it a brand of sea salt? ,, , and all refer to this as a type of gray sea salt from Brittany and make no reference to this as a brand. -- Whpq (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The only meaningful text in the article states it is a brand, which is supported by information at here, here which clearly label it as a registered trademark and brand name.
 * Still, being a brand isn't an obstacle in itself - but the only coverage of the brand appear to be trivial mentions, press releases, and marketing claims; for example, the ones you linked are only one-to-two sentence comments that confirm the brand exist, but provide no real substance beyond that. --- Barek (talk) - 17:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Delete As it stands, it's just advertising. 198.49.81.49 (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2010 (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.