Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suomenlinna Brewery


 * 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. with no one actually offering to work on this, so I have not drafted.If someone would like a copy, just ask. No need to go through refund Star   Mississippi  19:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Suomenlinna Brewery

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

Appears to fail WP:NCORP. The company, which per the article brings in an annual revenue of under 1 million Euros, currently contains three sources: None of these satisfy all three of WP:RS, WP:ORGIND, and WP:CORPDEPTH, so none contribute towards WP:ORGCRIT. A search returned few sources that even mention the brewery, and those that I found that did (such as this article, this article, this blog post, this list, and this travel guide) don't provide WP:CORPDEPTH-level coverage. As such, I think that this article should be deleted as its subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline for corporations. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 00:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) A wordpress blog;
 * 2) A database entry at the Finnish trade register;
 * 3) Another database entry, this time from Kauppalehti.
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Finland. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 00:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete I have been there. I have drunk the beer. But it does, indeed, fail WP:NCORP which really, really sucks because it's a fabulous place (and fabulous beer!). I looked for something, anything out there, but sadly not a trace of WP:SIGCOV. It's a rotten world, folks. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Highly experienced creator..., would you maybe want to userfy this and work on it in user space? Maybe if you can find Finnish sources? valereee (talk) 14:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I myself searched for the Finnish name of the restaurant and was unable to find sufficient sourcing. It’s generally not a good idea to draftify articles that whose subjects lack notability, as there is nothing that working on a draft can do to make a non-notable article subject notable. Therefore, I oppose draftification of this article as an alternative to deletion unless this company’s notability can be credibly demonstrated. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you can keep a draft in userspace and watch for more sources to show up. I have drafts in my userspace that just don't quite make it over the hump but that I believe might at some point. But I don't have a strong opinion on this -- as an admin, JIP can easily go view the draft and copy it to their userspace themselves. What I'd really like to see is them translating into their userspace and then not moving to main until they've proven notability, as it seems fi.wiki may have profoundly different requirements. valereee (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * [I]t seems fi.wiki may have profoundly different requirements.
 * Reading their guidelines, they seem to be pretty much the same as here. I think a smaller community just means less oversight in practice. ;;  Maddy  ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ ::  talk   18:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I was unable to find an equivalent to WP:NCORP on fi.wiki, so notability for companies appears to go by their WP:GNG-equivalent. WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH are more strict than GNG, so it's quite possible that the article meets inclusion standards on fi.wiki but not en.wiki. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:18, 8 June 2022 (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.