Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steaz


 * 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. Kurykh (talk) 08:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Steaz

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article consists of advertising for the named company and in detail for its products. Claims to notability are that the packaging has appeared in Glass News, and a news item on Yahoo about a charitable gift by the company. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I live less than an hour from Doylestown and frequent alot of different c-stores that carry smaller and/or local drink brands and I have never seen this product. Tunafizzle (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * delete Minor product spam Andy Dingley (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've struck my delete !vote. I'm still not convinced that becoming a business directory is a good thing for an encyclopedia, but as policy is currently written, this would now seem to meet it. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

* Delete - Promo of non-notable product. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks to everyone for writing about our entry. We are sorry if we didn't get it right. We modeled our article after the entry for Sweet Leaf Tea Company: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweet_Leaf_Tea_Company . We receive calls from the public noting that they found information on companies like ours on Wikipedia and why we weren't on Wikipedia so we thought we'd give it a try since there seemed to be interest. It is not our intent to spam or advertise so we tried to model after an already accepted entry. Would it be better if we put some financial information about the company? What about if we took down where the product is sold? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Leokpwong (talk) 05:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply The key item is whether the company meets general inclusion criteria, or those specific to companies.  To be kept, there needs to be significant coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 20:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - I cannot find significant independent coverage in reliable sources. I do fin a bunch of press releases though. -- Whpq (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I used to be from Doylestown and I know of Steaz, but it's not as though whether you've heard of it or not should be a consideration here. What matters is what the sources say.  There appears to be a great deal of coverage of the company on BevNet, which appears to be an independent source.  For instance:
 * There are many reviews of its products here
 * There are also some articles about the company itelf that do not appear to be press releases:
 * Steaz pushes affordable organic at mainstream,
 * Steaz Continues Growth and Expansion (Struck because this is a press release)
 * Steaz to Debut New Packaging, Zero Calorie Innovations at Expo West 2011 This also mentions the company has won a "Best Tea of 2008" and "Best Organic Product" of 2008 from BevNet. (Struck due to possible press release.  But this source confirms the the "Best Tea" and "Best Organic Product" awards from BevNet.)
 * Outside of BevNet, the company was also ranked #19 in terms of its growth in the food & beverage industry by Inc. Magazine in 2007. Steaz products were also named a "top-selling product" by Fresh Healthy Vending and a "top beverage" by FastCompany.  There is a bio of the company from the Philadelphia Business Journal that I'd argue constitutes significant coverage.  There is also some local coverage of the company, but these appear to be behind paywalls or are unavailable.  I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 21:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - This is a single news source, and the independence of the articles are suspect. Notice that the reviews have an edit link.  Although they review the submissions, it's not really content that is generated by a journalist working for Bevnet.  This article you listed is submitted The Healthy Beverage Company, the owners of the Steaz brand.  This post is not attributed, but bears all the hallmarks of a press release with registered trademark symbols and a final section labelled "About the Healthy Beverage Company and Steaz Iced Teaz®" just like a press release.  Finally this article looks to be a press release rehash as it consist almost enirely of quotes from the company. -- Whpq (talk) 00:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My bad-- I've struck those sources above. But I still think this is worth keeping-- there are still several awards and sources above that demonstrate the notability of the company.  I've also found a reliable source from BevNet confirming the awards they were given, rather than being in a press release-y sounding article.  BevNet reviews are distinguishable from "User Reviews", which can be made in addition to the BevNet review-- for an example see this page, so I think there is every reason to believe this it is coming from a journalist working for BevNet.   I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 02:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - This is a reluctant keep. It now seems to pass GNG, and is objectively written. I think industry reviews are good refs, and so these three: plus the existing refs tip the scales for me. I don't know how I didn't find them before. I get a lot of blocked sites where I am. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I've cleaned up the page and added the sources I named, plus a few others. I think it is in an appropriate state.  I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 18:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, as nom, I think Steaz is getting a scrupulously fair, even seasonally generous, treatment here. With Anna Frodesiak I'm a bit of a reluctant convert, but I Jethrobot has done an elegantly professional job on the article. I'm therefore prepared to withdraw if the remaining delete votes are dropped. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:28, 23 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.