Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gourmet Gift Baskets


 * 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 Speedy Delete. Speedy Deleted under WP:G7 by (non-admin closure) Exemplo347 (talk) 15:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Gourmet Gift Baskets

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

absurdly inconsequential. I would have listed for A7  except that some of the statements n the article might be interpreted as claims to significance.  DGG ( talk ) 08:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   FITINDIA   08:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.   FITINDIA   08:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete GNG not met. The articles about the Guinness World Records they've set don't count as "significant coverage" as they aren't actually about the company. The rest is just routine stuff - a company doing what it's supposed to be doing. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think there are plenty of examples of in-depth coverage here, including The Telegraph, Newsweek, and Fox News. I actually came across them when I read about their penalty, and found a bunch of other stuff. I'm not sure I agree about the Guinness Records being worth nothing, I found those articles outside the base region of the company, which is why I thought I would take a crack at it. Most of the stuff online is written by the company but I tried to be careful to avoid any primary sources where possible. I will see if I can find any more references to help support a claim of GNG. Isingness (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I see that you're the article's creator. In the future, I suggest trying to find the references BEFORE you publish your articles. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  20:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  20:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Corporate spam. References provides are mostly advertorials and fail WP:ORGIND. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Looks like the author just threw every reference they could find into the article. The filed complaint by Michael Jackson's estate over the kingofpop.com domain is probably more notable but Comments on sources below:
 * New Hampshire Union Leader article is an advertorial complete with history/problem/photos/quotes/financial info and projections. Fails WP:ORGIND.
 * This mixergy article is labelled a "case study" but in actuality, is a video advertisement. Fails WP:ORGIND.
 * Another New Hampshire Union Leader article that solicits reactions from local business owners about the impact of a "harsh winter". It is an inconsequential interview and quote an the article fails WP:CORPDEPTH
 * inc.com article fails WP:ORGIND as it is a transcript of an interview.
 * NH Business Review article fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it is a top 500 list which includes the company name
 * thenation.com article fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it is a mention in passing in relation to moving down and up Google's search results.
 * Google Books result fails as it is simply referencing the inclusion in inc.com's top 500
 * Another NHUL article (advertorial) that fails WP:ORGIND
 * Yet another NHUL article that mentions in passing that "work is nearing completion at a new 120,000 square foot building in Exeter for GourmetGiftBaskets.com ..." Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
 * And another NHUL article that mentions the company in passing from Executive Council minutes with "Authorized the Community Development Finance Authority to award the town of Exeter $499,000 in federal Community Development Block Grant money to assist GourmetGiftBaskets.com with purchasing equipment at its new facility on Epping Road in Exeter." Fails WP:CORPDEPTH
 * This article fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it is a routine business announcement and fails WP:ORGIND as it is a Press Release written by the company.
 * This law360 article and this foxnews article reports the Michael Jackson estate suing KingOfPop.com (owned by the GGB) because the name is too similar with MJ moniker. Fails WP:ILLCON
 * latinpost.com article includes GGB products as a suggestion for a holiday gift basket. It is not in-depth coverage and mostly copies product descriptions from their website. Not in-depth coverage.
 * reviewjournal.com article fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it merely mentions the company in passing.
 * This Christian Science Monitor article fails WP:CORPDEPTH and [[WP:ORGIND] as the article includes 3 sentences which are quotes from a company officer
 * This miaminewtimes article fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it merely discusses some of the products on sale.
 * this thedailymeal article fails as the article is not independent (says at the end that "coverage made possible by participating in a sponsored tasting")
 * This telegraph article is the Guinness Record giant cupcake. In my opinion, it is a corporate advert and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. These types of articles fail the criteria for establishing notability. The article is really about the cupcake, not the company.
 * This newsweek article fails for the same reason. Another corporate advert, this time for the Largest Iced Coffee.
 * Finally, I could not get access to p.11 of the book weird-o-pedia so no comment on that one. Of the above sources, other editors may be of the opinion that the Guinness records and the Michael Jackson lawsuit meet the criteria for establishing notability but until I see a rational argument, I am of the opinion that there isn't enough in those articles to support a Keep !vote. -- HighKing ++ 13:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- the content belongs on the company web site, not here. Wikipedia is not an avenue for promotion for unremarkable private businesses. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  So Why  07:46, 14 June 2017 (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.