Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cherrybrook Kitchen


 * 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. The advertising tone of the article needs to be addressed, but consensus seems to be that the article is worth keeping. &mdash; Joseph Fox 22:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Cherrybrook Kitchen

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Was CSD-A7 on grounds that it reads like an add, but its not copyright infringement and the article has been here for while. Under the circumstances I feel an afd would be better suited to determine whether the article should stay or go. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 13:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 13:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:ARTSPAM. Reads like promotional material, and no evidence of notability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Coverage in The New York Times, Parents magazine and Kiwi Magazine is sufficient to establish notability, even though some other references aren't independent. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The New York Times is a respectable reference but there is no "significant coverage" per WP:GNG. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete One you delete the advertising, there is no article left to discuss.  No notability related info in the text of the article except the partnership, and the source on that is their own press release. North8000 (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per North8000. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - I didn't see any other notable sources on Google and Yahoo aside from that New York Times mention. SwisterTwister   talk  22:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep on the basis of the NYT story. I'm not all that impressed by the Parent web p., which just reprints PR. That they selected it is perhaps notable, but there's no way of telling that from their page. There's a simple standard that I use: If the NYT thinks something worthy of a full story, who are we to second guess the. They choose on the basis of what their readers will think important, which is what an encyclopedia  is doing also.   DGG ( talk ) 22:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC).
 * WP requires significant coverage rather than whether NYT does a story on it. To put it another way, A topic in NYT does not equate to notability on WP. Hey DGG, you are a bit of an inclusionist arn't you????!!! Don't worry, its just an observation - not a judgement. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep based on the NYT full story and the fact this seems to be notable in the allergy food market, something I know a fair bit about, having a gluten intolerance myself.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that there is a Food allergy in the United States article which I had split from Food allergy. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I would agree with neither those who suggest the the NYT coverage isn't signficant (it is) nor those who suggest that the NYT found this topic "worthy of a full article" (the subject of the NYT article isn't the subject of our article)  Still, there's enough coverage here for a very modest article, particularly in view of the chapter devoted to them within this book and some other more passing coverage one might find if one had clicked on the books link above.  (Glad to know I meet DGG's criteria for notability personally, though, I can't wait to see my bio!) --joe deckertalk to me 15:16, 22 August 2011 (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.