Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LesserEvil (2nd nomination)


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  04:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

LesserEvil
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I nominated this page for deletion for not establishing its notability in 2022 and I've now realised it has been recreated. Admittedly, the article now has more sources than it did then but as can be seen from the table below, there are still no sources that count towards GNG or ORGCRIT. They are almost all either small local newspapers or specialist trade publications. In any case, the sources either largely depend on quotes or read like press releases. It should be deleted.

Jtrrs0 (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Companies. Jtrrs0 (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  18:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. We need at least one independent non-local source per WP:NCORP, so we look at International Bakery (a reprint of this press release ), Foodbusiness (a reprint of this press release ), and Nosh (I feel slightly better about this as a source than nom, previous RSN discussion, but in any case, the specific article is a CEO interview). ~ A412  talk! 23:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Just to note that we need at least two sources per WP:NCORP, not one. Jtrrs0 (talk) 11:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think we agree, and I'm aware of the general provisions of WP:NCORP, I was quoting the audience requirement, which says At least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary. ~ A412  talk! 18:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Right, sorry! Jtrrs0 (talk) 08:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: Two new sources have been added - a Forbes article from 2019, as well as a more recent Bloomberg Law article. The company is well-known and worthy of an article. It can be improved but not worthy of deletion. CityLimitsJunction (talk) 01:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Articles by Forbes contributors are generally not considered reliable. ~ A412  talk! 02:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with @A412 that Forbes is not reliable. I have tried having a look at the Bloomberg Law article. It is paywalled so I can't read all of it. Bloomberg Law is probably reliable, like most articles written by Bloomberg staff tend to be. I am not sure it amounts to significant coverage for the company, though. It's an article, as far as I can see, about a first-instance lawsuit against the company. I am not sure that it should count. Even if it's sufficiently in-depth, I am not sure it sufficiently demonstrates the company is notable enough. Jtrrs0 (talk) 11:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Two additional independent & non-local sources have been added - neither echo any press release material. Thus the article shall remain active. CityLimitsJunction (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I only see one extra source, the Just Food piece. If you mean the sources in the 'Ingredients' section I removed, they should also not count because some nutriologist noting that a product has a short ingredient list does not even come close to establishing the company's notability.
 * Apart from that, I've had a look at the Just Food article. It is almost entirely reliant on quotes from the Company/its officers/business partners. It is not independent.
 * Furthermore, even if we do find two sources, please note that only creates a presumption of notability (per WP:ORGCRIT. Jtrrs0 (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: More analysis of the sources that have been added would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've added multiple additional RS with SIGCOV, removed a few of the worst press-release ones and the content sourced only to them. I think this subject makes it over the hump. Valereee (talk) 16:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, none of the sources added amount to to RS SIGCOV. They are:
 * 'Top 10 list' style coverage that happens to cover one of their products ( and ) and which only amount to trivial coverage;
 * A Forbes contributor piece which is not RS;
 * Reviews of a product of the company ( and ) which must be treated very carefully. Setting aside whether they are reliable and independent sources, neither amounts to significant coverage of the company. They are just covering some of their products. Coverage of the company itself is trivial. Companies do not inherit notability from their products.
 * Jtrrs0 (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't add that Forbes piece. I added Men's Health, Business Insider, E! Online, Bon Appetit, Baking Business, Prevention, WFSB, Self, and Eat This, Not That, IIRC. Valereee (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the confusion on my part. I'll deal with them one by one:
 * Men's health is link 8. I don't think a review of a single product establishes notability either of the company or of their product line such that WP:NPRODUCT applies.
 * Business Insider is paywalled but seems to be just another review of a single product.
 * E! (link 5 above) is indeed trivial coverage of a single product in a Top 15 list.
 * Bon appetit (link 7) is a slightly less trivial review of a single product. It's a few paragraphs of prose rather than a terse couple of sentences in a top 10 list. This surely still can't amount to SIGCOV of the company though. Is the company notable because a reviewer liked their pink salt popcorn?
 * Baking Business : reads suspiciously like a press release. I've found two posts with almost identical wording ( and ). It's almost certainly a press release.
 * Prevention is a one-line mention of the company in a top 30 list.
 * WFSB has several problems. The article is largely composed of quotes. It's not independent. Likewise the 1min57s reportage. WFSB is also a newstation local to Hartford.
 * In my view none of these establish a presumption of notability for the company or their products. They are all reviews of a single product, entries in a Top X list, press releases or otherwise not sources we count for notability. Jtrrs0 (talk) 08:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Companies do not inherit notability from their products.
 * While this is true, the article is effectively about the company's line of snack products, and by WP:NPRODUCT, In cases where a company is mainly known for a single series of products or services, it is usually better to cover the company and its products/services in the same article. This article can be the name of the company or the name of its product, depending on which is the primary topic.
 * I would be inclined, in this case, to count substantial reviews of their product line, though I have yet to look at the sources added by Valereee. ~ A412  talk! 18:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I take your point. If there were substantial reviews of the company's product range I might be inclined to agree (subject obvs to the reviews being substantial reliable and independent). But as you can see from my reply to Valereee, none of the new sources amount to that. They are either reviews of individual products, or top 10 list entries or a press release. Jtrrs0 (talk) 08:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep With the addition of credible sources by Valereee, and 'Recognition' section now firmly demonstrates the subject's notability on its own.Gedaali (talk) 09:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per the new sources added demonstrating notability. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:07, 18 April 2024 (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.