Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consolidated


 * 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. There is sufficient consensus that there is improved secondary sourcing sufficient to provide notability and that the article is distinct from Coca-cola and warrants its own article (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 01:32, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consolidated

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet notability guidelines. Almost every source is primary. There are plenty of bottling companies, the only notable thing about this one it's large, but that doesn't warrant an entire article. That fact could be a simple mention in the articles on Coca-Cola and/or Charlotte, North Carolina. Surachit (talk) 23:57, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:58, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:58, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:58, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 14:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete no reliable, verifiable, independent sources. Cabayi (talk) 08:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - Sources fail WP:CORPDEPTH. shoy (reactions) 19:49, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Coca-Cola bottling as a topic is huge economically, perhaps as much as 1/2 of the economic value of Coca-Cola, and is distinct from Coca-Cola the brand.  Offhand, this so far seems like an ignorant deletion nomination argument, no offense intended.  Perhaps it would be possible to merge/redirect this to a more broad discussion about Coca-Cola bottling. --Doncram (talk) 05:55, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note there is plenty of discussion about Coca-Cola bottlers in the Coca-Cola article, but there seems to be no List of Coca-Cola bottlers or other overview article about Coca-Cola bottling. C-C just manufactures concentrate and sells it to bottlers.  There is Category:Coca-Cola bottlers with 20+ members.  There needs to be an overview article and/or list-article about bottling.  About this one bottler, it should not be deleted outright.  At worst it should be merged/redirected to a list-article, which would surely be notable.  I am willing to start a list-article.  So, one way to resolve this AFD would be to close in favor of a Merge to that list-article, which leaves homework to be done.  But leaving some homework is okay, is done often with Merge decisions (though not usually with a redlink merge target).  However overall I think this article can still be kept outright. --Doncram (talk) 05:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Keep - Coca-Cola bottlers include some of the largest companies in the world, including, of course, the company that people want to delete here, namely, COKE. COKE's market cap is $1,551,905,744. I'd like to buy the world a Coke, but just my investments are tied and can't quite lay off $1.55 billion. Is Wikipedia about to start deleting all companies that are less than $2 billion? I would be in agreement with deleting this Coca-Cola bottlers only if we deleted all other companies this size and smaller. Coca-Cola Bottlers Consolidated is not only the largest CC bottler in these United States, it has 16,500 employees, and sales (revenue) of $4.32 billion per year. Lemme put it this way: Coca-Cola Bottlers Consolidated is larger than H&R Block, for example, by revenue and by market cap. Anyone thinking of deleting the H&R Block page? Look, I've added a source or two to the COKE page. Also, per WP:ORGIN with the sources currently in the article, the article meets notability as required by WP:CORP. - XavierItzm (talk) 07:28, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. The Wikipedia article does not make it clear (though the 10-K filing linked from the article does make it clear) this is the company publicly traded as COKE.  It is traded on NASDAQ, as opposed to The Coca-Cola company, which is traded on NYSE stock symbol KO.  Its market valuation is $1.58 billion U.S. (as opposed to KO whose market valuation is $198.75 B, much larger, yes, but still you try to start a 1.58 billion company).  COKE's TTM is 4.59 billion.  See Yahoo Finance on COKE.  There is VAST VAST independent reliable literature about it.  For example news reports linked from this NASDAQ-supplied links to news coverage, including Zacks financial analysts' reports on upcoming quarterly earnings forecasts.  This is slam-dunk absolute "Keep".  There do exist some Wikipedia editors (not necessarily those voting delete above because it has not been obvious this is in fact COKE) who hold that huge publicly traded companies are not necessarily notable, which is crazy.  In fact all of NYSE and a great number of NASDAQ companies including this one and AAPL (Apple, Inc.) are completely obviously notable, by dint of vast vast coverage/news/literature about them, because in fact they are huge publicly traded companies.  If you want to delete this company from wikipedia I think you must delete all companies having less than 4.59 billion annual sales, so, for example, kiss all elements of Category:Restaurants goodbye and reject List of restaurants as there is no way that all restaurants could add up to that amount.  And delete almost all other businesses in Wikipedia, too. --Doncram (talk) 13:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC) 18:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per argument made by User:Doncram.  Needs improvement, as do most of our articles. Suggest that editors look at discussions in books, and at the several notable legal cases involving this company.  Searchbar is useful, but searching on "Coca Cola Bottling" is also helpful, as is remembering that this corporation was more prominent in the 20th century, making archive searches useful.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note also tha tmany of the bottling plants were architecturally notable .E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:54, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC) etc. XavierItzm (talk) 05:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep If a company with a yearly revenue of over 4.2 billion dollars isn't notable, than I don't know what is. Notable doesn't have to be well-known, as that's a highly subjective term. What notable does mean is that an article could be made about the topic with existing information. As stated above, this company's literally worth more than H&R block, and nearly the size of AMD or EA. None of those companies should have their articles deleted, that much I am certain we can agree on. This company is no different, as it is the world's largest bottler for COKE. As such, this article is a prime example of the type of content that should be kept, not needlessly deleted. SuperChris (talk) 23:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note - the original objections were "Almost every source is primary" and "no reliable, verifiable, independent sources." Have you seen the article lately?  Here are its current sources, among others:
 * 1) The Cincinnati Enquirer
 * 2) San Francisco Chronicle
 * 3) The New York Times
 * 4) Food & Wine
 * 5) Charleston Gazette-Mail
 * 6) NASDAQ


 * 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.