Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hafnia (food 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 delete. Except two WP:GOOGLEHITS !votes that did not present any sources, there are no arguments made for the subject's notability. SoWhy 11:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Hafnia (food company)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable canned food company and meat brand. The article was PRODed by me, but the PROD was removed without addressing the notability concerns and with a request to perhaps take to AfD for a wider discussion without specifying why. The article is currently based on one single source from Liverpool Echo.

The Danish company Hafina Konserves A/S (earlier name Hafnia Skinkekogeri A/S), one of many Danish canning factories in the 1960s, existed as a company until 1971 when it was bought by Jydske Andelsslagteriers Konservesfabrik (no article on Danish Wikipedia either), perhaps better known under the acronym JAKA for products like this. JAKA and a number of other food companies fused in 1990 to form Tulip Food Company, which is today owned by Danish Crown.

"Hafnia" and "Hafnia Ham" had existed on the British market since 1956. As a brand name, Hafnia continued to exist on the British market after the 1971 buyout, and sponsored the shirts for Everton F.C. between 1979 and 1985 supposedly. Hafnia Ham, a U.K. subsidiary of Tulip, continues to exist as a dormant company.

Hafnia products were also sold in North-America, at least as early as 1925.

Still, I'd be surprised if anybody can source this to and. I can't. Should the article be kept, it should be moved to Hafnia (company).

I'm fond of ATD-R-solutions, and if someone wants to translate da:Tulip Food Company and seriously flesh it out (pun intended) with a good § History section, there is the theoretical possibility of redirecting Hafnia (company) to Tulip Food Company. A redirect to Everton F.C. would be more straightforward, althoug I'm not sure how much value it has for the readers. Sam Sailor 13:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 13:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 13:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 13:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 13:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 13:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Subject isn't notable. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 16:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete I sent to speedy on A7, declined by Sam Sailor on the basis it has a claim to significance. I can see no assertion of notability. It is a defunct company. Szzuk (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep plenty of coverage on Google Books for this conpany's products over many decades. FloridaArmy (talk) 06:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep long estabished company with a lot of covereage on Google Books, and google. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, having spend several hours to find sources with significant coverage, I am well aware of the the number of trivial mentions, but  significant coverage online proves difficult. And I say that with the added benefit of understanding the Danish sources, and in general enjoying rescuing articles from deletion.
 * The WP:SOURCESEARCH, and WP:ITSOOLD arguments should be avoided, and I'm not impressed with the first "keep" voter posting here after only 10 minutes of research (06:05-06:15) and the second "keep" voter after only 4 minutes of research (11:23-11:27).
 * But do please bring sources here for evaluation, e.g. presented in Assess table and Source assess, and start building the article. Sam Sailor 12:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The New Torker article from 1925, the San Francisco Magazine article, the articles cited in the article, and the recently added article about the brands relaunch and team sponsorship establish notability. As you noted lots and lots and lots of mentions too. But the sources discussing the company and its products are enough. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * A. The citation to The New Yorker was presented by me in this discussion, and from the snippet view we get in Google books, it can not be considered significant coverage about the company.
 * B. San Francisco Magazine article - it would be helpful to link to the sources, here is what I presume is the citation: with the insignificant snippet "The most widely distributed brand of canned bacon in this area is Hafnia, which is imported from Denmark. I have used it many times ..."
 * C. the articles cited in the article, and the recently added article about the brands relaunch and team sponsorship establish notability - there are only two, both of them from the local media Liverpool Echo, both of them more about football than about Hafnia. I'm not even sure they are correct, when they claim Hafnia ham was never sold in Britain, cf. the sources above.
 * So no, merely asserting that the sources discussing the company and its products are enough is not enough. Sam Sailor 13:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete -- Article fails WP:CORP for lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Searching through Danish sources, I found very little for "Hafnia Skinke" or "Hafnia Konserves," let alone any in-depth coverage. There are only simple mentions -- just as in the English language publications and Google books mentioned above. (And some of it is fairly confused such as info in the small Liverpool daily paper.) I agree with Sam Sailor's analysis; and am surprised that an article does not yet exist for Tulip Food Company which had the first registered trademark in Denmark. That could be a place to redirect. But there is not enough clear information yet to establish a stand-alone article for Hafnia. — Cactus Writer (talk) 16:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete A thorough analysis of references by Sam, fails GNG and WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 13:26, 4 March 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.