Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ringtons Tea


 * 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 16:36, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Ringtons Tea

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

I don't think this article passes notability under WP:COMPANY. It currently has only one reference independent of the company itself, which seems to be a single page in How Household Names Began: indeed, this is the only result that comes up on Google Books for 'Ringtons Tea' apart from passing mentions on unrelated topics. All the hits on the first page of Google are to the company's own website, and nothing meaningful comes up on JSTOR, Google Scholar (apart from a passing mention of their charity work) etc.

The primary criteria for notability for a corporation under WP:COMPANY are:


 * A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of '''significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

The sources to support this should:


 * Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth.
 * Be completely independent of the article subject.
 * Meet the standard for being a reliable source.
 * Be a secondary source; primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability.

Of the two sources mentioned, the first (the company's own website) fails on 2, 3 and 4; the second only cites two pages and a few facts, so is unlikely to meet 1. From what investigation I've been able to do, I think it's unlikely that any significant number of sources are going to be uncovered to change this picture, and so the article should be deleted per c8 of WP:DELETE, namely Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth)

The page was created by an IP user (User:178.23.130.18) who has only made edits to this page and one to a second tea-related page (Rooibos), which was considered vandalism and subsequently reverted. I suggest that it's quite likely that the creation of this page involved a WP:COI. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies,  and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: Yep, the article as it stands is mostly self-published, insignificant storytelling. Sharing the results of a cursory Google search -
 * I found several articles on www.business-live.co.uk (on increased turnover, on a new fruit and herb tea facility, on post-lockdown sales, on a new business initiative, on adopting electric delivery vans, on a Port of Tyne deal, on increasing demand). Note that all but one of these articles are from the same journalist, so should not be treated as multiple sources (WP:MULTSOURCES).
 * Then, there are sources relating to local initiatives/partnerships (1, 2), and sources from other partnered companies (1, 2).
 * My sense is that what coverage exists of the company is local in scope, and therefore fails WP:CORPDEPTH. WP:FAILCORP suggests instead an inclusion on the entry for the local area (Byker, in this case), which might be more appropriate. _  MB190417  _ (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2023 (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.