Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coco Republic


 * 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. Tone 18:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Coco Republic

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There's extactly one piece of "independent" coverage here - the NZ Herald article - and that's not exactly a stellar example of journalism. The rest is reworked press releases and paid-for features. This retailer appears to fail WP:CORPDEPTH. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2020 September 5.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 15:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep significant corporation in NZ and Australia. And the NZ Herald is not worse or better than any other NZ newspaper. Probably better than many. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 00:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm aware that the NZ Herald is a reputable newspaper; reading is tech. Also, please demonstrate that it is a "significant corporation" - there's this thing called sources that we use. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Someone got out of the wrong side of the bed today, it seems. For an Australian corporation it actually makes significant revenue. And the sources it gives already are significant enough to show notability in my opinion. I see you disagree, and I respect that. Try not to get an ulser over me disagreeing with you. Life is too short! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 01:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not the only one who will require you to show sources, but feel free to coast on opinion instead... -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the existing sources are pretty good. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 02:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 03:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. Between sources already there and others showing with a quick google, will meet WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorhawkes (talk • contribs)
 * Keep - Chris.sherlock and Doctorhawkes make good points. Deus et lex (talk) 02:43, 8 September 2020 (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.