Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mountain Rose Herbs


 * 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 no consensus. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Mountain Rose Herbs

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Pure promotionalism, and borderline notability at best,. Most of the content is a description of their multiple routine environmental credentials in laudatory language, which is appropriate content for a web page, not an encycopedia article. Ditto for the pictures of their product packages, and a photo of a very nice looking polished wood award they were once given by an unimportant local group. The list of remarkabley minor awards is most of it too trivial even for a good web page.

and when I see an article of a 180-person company company listing 4 executives,  I know what the purpose of the article is.  DGG ( talk ) 09:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  17:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  17:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  17:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  17:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete likely as "Mountain Rose Herbs Oregon company" found several links at Books, News, browser and Highbeam but unlikely for a better article. SwisterTwister   talk  17:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * This appears to be a local business in Oregon. Unless better sourcing can be found, it would fail WP:CORPDEPTH and thus would have to be a delete. Bearian (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – Here's a source from NPR. North America1000 20:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - have added citations from USNews and NPR (thanks ), and have edited the article to hopefully remove 's issues with promotion. I think the NPR piece dispels the issues with WP:CORPDEPTH.  Onel 5969  TT me 16:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I consider almost all of section three promotional, designed to impress the typical consumers they aim at: it's what they want the customers to know, which is the basic definition of advertising. The awards in section 4 are every one of them utterly trivial. The NPR piece is essentially an advertorial, containing no reporting, but just quotes from the company. The US News article is a long article about Ginseng, with one sentence saying the this firm is a supplier--a perfect example of an incidental mention  DGG ( talk ) 21:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - didn't have an opinion before, but I think keeping the article (and keeping the promotional cleanup tag) is the best path now given the removal of some promotional content. Regarding section three and four: I disagree that they are too promotional. I think it's OK to mention some awards and policies of the company, assuming those sections don't take up a disproportionate amount of the article. Appable (talk) 00:13, 12 November 2015 (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.