Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crik Nutrition


 * 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. ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 14:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Crik Nutrition

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:TOOSOON. Sourced mostly to press releases/highly promotional and I can find little in the way of coverage - everything else is funding announcements and pr. Praxidicae (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 *  Keep Main Reason: In my research in the use of crickets as food and related companies, they are mentioned as the first to develop and produce such a product. Some companies sell similar but searches results show them doing so years later Updates: Spent a few hours sourcing first-source citations and neutralizing wording. Removed press releases, added many more reputable citations from newspapers, TV/Radio, and other well known publications.PolishGiraffe 20:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep There is a claim of notability in the second sentence, about their being "one of the first companies in North America to develop and commercialize insect protein powder based on crickets". This claim is supported by two citations. The first contains the passage "Crik Nutrition is a new company with a one of kind product in North America;" the second contains the passage "Other companies that have created cricket-based food products include Crik Nutrition, which has formulated a cricket protein powder, and Six Foods, which has created cricket-based chips called Chirps."  The claim is not firmly "we were the first" but "we were among the first".  There is also the matter of an apparent change of sourcing which I've documented in the Products-section, and there might be a story there about sourcing crickets and making powder vs. sourcing powder, which would be an interesting strategic business shift if it could be established.  I think this is on the edge of WP:TOOSOON, but I'd tip that over to acceptance based on anticipation of future emerging activities / information.  It's worth noting that the number of firms involved in insect-based food production is substantial, meaning that Crik is by no means a pioneer in the field as a whole (see Category talk:Insect food companies); it might turn out that they are among the early movers in the supplement area - divorcing the form from the source (ala chicken nuggets :-) ). --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 03:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 20:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete There are 22 references listed within the article but not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability. Analysis of the sources as follows:
 * This case study by the Rural Development Institute formally acknowledges the participation of the company and states that all of the five participating companies provide "insight through inverviews". All of the information has been provided by the company and there is no "Independent Content", fails WP:ORGIND.
 * This from The Globe and Mail (Canada), this from Winnipeg Free Press and this from Kidesignmagazine are single mentions-in-passing that provide no information on the company, and therefore fail WP:CORPDEPTH
 * This from Edible Insects is a generic article on insect-based nutrition and doesn't even mention the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
 * The next references are to articles based entirely on an interview with the owner. This from Metro News, this from MetroNews, this from Winnipeg Free Press, this from CBC, this also from Winnipeg Free Press and this from Futurpreneur Canada all fail WP:ORGIND as there is no Independent Content on the company.
 * This from the Whitehorse Daily Star is a profile on a different company, Entomo Farms, that briefly mentions the fact that Crik buys "cricket powder" from them. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH
 * This from Mens Fitness is an article on Protein and briefly mentions receiving a sample of insect powder from Crik. It provides no information on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
 * This is from the "sites" section of Forbes and the long-standing guideline is that these pages are not reliable sources. Leaving that aside, the information in this article on the company is based entirely on quotations from the founder. Fails WP:RS and WP:ORGIND
 * This is a link to the company's Indiegogo campaign, fails WP:ORGIND. Similarly, this from Buzzfeed mention the crowdfunding campaign but don't add any information about the company, failing WP:ORGIND.
 * This from Innovate Manitoba eNews is a report on "Pitch Day 2015" where companies and founders pitch their ideas and doesn't mention this company. At the bottom of the page it has links to more news and one of the articles mentions Crik being featured as one of CNBC's 20 hottest startups of 2015 but the articles themselves have not survived. Based on what we see here, this source fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
 * This from the Global Entrepreneurship Network, this from CNBC's hottes startups (same article as this from MSN) are simply articles containing a company profile provided by the company. There is no Independent Content and these articles fail WP:ORGIND.
 * On page 50 of the Paleo Magazine it lists "Best 'Alternative' Protein" products and includes a photo and description of Crik Nutrition Powder. There is no information on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
 * There is no doubt that this company received a lot of interest due to their unusual business but I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. The test is not merely for "independent sources" that support a claim of notability about being "the first". The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content" is defined as content *about the company* which includes original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references meet the criteria, topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 11:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete, per HighKing's in-depth weapons-grade analysis of the sourcing. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 02:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   17:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 21:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, agree with HighKing's analysis: in summary WP:CORPDEPTH is not met. Would further point out that Forbes.com/sites (with "contributor" byline, which is the case here) is listed as non-RS at WP:RSPS. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:18, 12 May 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.