Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guayakí (company)


 * 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. G5 doesn't apply; the user in question was not blocked or banned at the time they created the article, and there have been significant edits by others. Yunshui 雲 水 15:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Guayakí (company)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable company; the sources in the article that are non-independent are niche publications and there is no WP:CORPDEPTH-level coverage. Regarding the sources recently added to the talk page, I think they are routine and don't rise to the level of significant coverage. I'm not sure if it matters, but the article creator was indefinitely blocked by a checkuser as a sock of a previously blocked user. (Does WP:CSD apply?) Deli nk (talk) 12:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak keep (EDIT: Changed to Keep now that I've improved the inline refs) - CSD G5 doesn't apply because the page was not created in violation of a block. Anyway, I'd say the article just barely scrapes past WP:CORPDEPTH when all current citations and all links included on the talk page are considered. For instance, this source would be reliable per WP:CORPDEPTH as a scholarly article that includes analysis/commentary/discussion of the company. I'll work on the in-text citations to get them up to standard. Nanophosis (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I was the one who removed the PROD and added multiple RSes to the talk page to support. http://www.newsweek.com/small-biz-makeover-guayaki-teas-big-challenge-76809 https://www.bevnet.com/news/2018/outside-investment-fuels-vertical-growth-guayaki http://rsfsocialfinance.org/2012/08/27/guayaki-pioneers/ https://www.100yearsofsun.com/single-post/2016/07/03/Guayak%C3%AD-Yerba-Mate-MarketDriven-Regenerative-Agriculture-at-the-Base-of-the-Pyramid https://magazine.calpoly.edu/spring-summer-2018/cultivating-change-guayaki-21-years-later/ https://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/blog/guayak%C3%AD http://kwhs.wharton.upenn.edu/2013/03/restoring-the-rainforest-guayaki-brews-environmental-and-social-change/ We do not usually delete poorly written articles, we delete non-notable subjects and the sources support the subject's notability. Perhaps the nominator could do WP:BEFORE instead of creating unnecessary deletion discussions. I'm quite close to suggesting either a topic ban from nominating for deletion for the nominator, but will let the closing admin decide. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You are simply wrong that I didn't do WP:BEFORE.  The references I found did not amount to WP:CORPDEPTH in my opinion, hence this nomination.  I have nominated literally hundreds of articles for speedy deletion, proposed deletion, and AFD with nearly all being eventually deleted; your suggestion that because you object to just one of these nominations that I should be prevented from doing so in the future is just plain petty.  Deli nk (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep- Not sure if G5 applies so I am judging this on notability alone. Add this from Time Magazine to the reference as it meets WP:CORPDEPTH. The Newsweek article seems like routine coverage based on the title, but it is very detailed and in-depth about the company. Both Time and Newsweek are reliable sources so WP:ORG is met IMHO.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2018 (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.