Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natures Way Foods


 * 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. Consensus is that the "press coverage" is not sufficiently independent and significant for the company to meet WP:GNG. Mkativerata (talk) 04:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Natures Way Foods

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I'm unsure as to if this article meets our notability guideline for companies. It was created by PR firm Bell Pottinger, and seems to be well-written, but I would appreciate some other opinions. The Cavalry (Message me) 16:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I fo'und s'ome cover'age of the company' h'ere: --Dweller (talk) 16:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note. I trimmed what I saw as the excessive promotional bits and pieces from the article, but there were some references in there that might be of use. There was a list of awards but they mainly seemed to be industry awards that are not notable. I will have a further look to see if the sources are enough to show it meets WP:CORP. Polequant (talk) 16:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't see in-depth coverage currently and the awards don't strike me as particularly notable, sufficient to trump other notability requirements. But I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise. A company with that kind of turnover probably is notable, well, they damn well ought to be if Bell Pottinger have been doing a decent job and not just flapping around on Wikipedia, but there's no evidence here yet. Happy to revise opinion if things change. --Dweller (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC) I considered speedy deleting and salting the article for crimes against the apostrophe, but reconsidered. I suppose punctuation isn't vital in the world of bagged salad. I recommend someone buys their CEO a copy of Eats, Shoots & Leaves.
 * Oops. I only saw this after my !vote, but I don't think this interview by a trade publication changes anything. It's not much more independent than a press release. Hans Adler 03:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe just about keep. There's lots of bits and pieces but there doesn't seem to be a "clincher" to show notability. In addition to the link Dweller has found there is also things like and . In the general press, their 'Lasting Leaf' salad has got some attention -,  - but those don't actually talk about the company. They also had a salmonella scare , and someone lost a finger in a machine . Given the size of the company and that they supply some of the biggest supermarket groups in the UK I would almost expect them to be notable. Polequant (talk) 17:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Given what we know about the creator, this is essentially not-quite-G12-quality advertising.  Let someone independent write an article about it, but the content as it currently stands is in violation of our no-promotion standards.  Nyttend (talk) 00:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable, like their products. A damp lettuce-leaf of an article... ;-) Seriously though, an article that tells us that company X makes a lot of Y isn't exactly illuminating, and listing their customers doesn't add notability either. If the company is of any real significance, there should be evidence for it from sources other than their own PR department, and from dubious PR agencies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The company employs 400 people and generates coverage in the press. I really don't think that we'd be getting rid of the company's entry if it weren't for Bell Pottinger's role. JASpencer (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is no coverage other than press releases (irrelevant for WP:GNG as they are not independent, even when repeated by others) and the salmonella incident. The salmonella incident alone was not significant enough to make the company notable, and its inclusion would skew the article unacceptably. Without it there is no independent coverage at all. Altogether, a clear failure of WP:GNG and no practical way to keep the article in any reasonable form. It's tempting to punish the company for having used Bell Pottinger by keeping the article with the salmonella stuff, but we don't do that kind of thing. Hans Adler 03:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. I have no interest in making a kneejerk reaction to promotional editing - we should judge the content how it stands, not how it got here. However, there seems to be a slight shortage of independent coverage by other sources. Happy to revise my !vote if somebody unearths additional sources which go beyond press releases &c. bobrayner (talk) 20:32, 15 December 2011 (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.