Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superbrands (2nd nomination)


 * 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. ✗ plicit  23:48, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Superbrands
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

The appropriate guideline for companies/organizations is WP:NCORP. I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability.  HighKing++ 16:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  HighKing++ 16:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Kept in 2016, not eligible for soft deletion despite no opposition.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hog Farm Talk 16:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - insufficient sourcing, and a Google search doesn't turn up very much else. Megtetg34 (talk) 21:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 17:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Comment Delete - I could find almost nothing in terms of independent coverage in reliable sources from delving into some of the many search results, which surprised me. This paywalled article may be one source: 10 reasons why Superbrands 2018 is a worthless list. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:37, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Some of the sources identified by Cunard look very promising for establishing notability. Striking my delete vote for now, and will have a look through the sources. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 07:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately a few of the sources are not available to me but I'm now satisfied that GNG appears to be met. Article needs some work: I did a quick first pass to remove promotional (and, I think, copyvio) material. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The article notes: "A CONTROVERSY has erupted over whether firms are paying to get their products endorsed as 'Superbrands' by a Hong Kong-headquartered publishing agency. This emerged in the December issue of Singapore-based advertising trade publication Marketing, which reported that firms were dropping out of the Superbrands list as they felt they should not have to pay a 'substantial sum' for Superbrand status, even after being judged by a council to be a 'super brand'. Launched in Singapore three years ago, the gold Superbrands logo is often prominently displayed in advertisements by brands such as Han's and California Fitness, as a mark of endorsement by consumers and industry experts. The article in Marketing incurred the wrath of Asian Integrated Media (AIM) - which gives out the Superbrands awards each year. It says it does not run an 'award-for-sale' system."  <li> The abstract notes, "The objective of the case study is to explain an impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on the grant of Superbrand recognition." The book notes, "The Superbrand has influenced the change of perception among company’s potential clients because they now don’t only consider “The Big Four” global players above mentioned. More and more potential clients have been approaching to Morison Menon since they recall the Superbrand recognition, which has been linked to the company’s priorities to offer the best service in knowledge economy industry. ... There are many opportunities coming from having Superbrand recognition, and the major location in one of the most global cities in the world, Dubai, and its upcoming 2020 Expo."</li> <li> The article notes, "Changes are under way at Superbrands, the company that devises programmes to recognise branding excellence. In the first revision of its assessment methods since it was founded in 1995, Superbrands has entered a five-year partnership with YouGov, the online research agency, to gauge consumer opinion of hundreds of British brands in its annual survey. Under the new system, independent researchers first put forward a selection of thousands of UK consumer brands. Of these, 1,200 are selected for a shortlist. These are then given marks from 1 to 10 by the Superbrands Council, an impartial body of 18 industry specialists that changes every year."</li> <li> The article notes, "The Superbrands book is distributed in 26 countries worldwide and will reach 30 by year-end.  About 54 per cent of the products that have Superbrands status use the Superbrands logo on their packaging, advertising campaign and billboards. ...  Superbrands started in the UK 12 years ago. It entered Malaysia in March 2001. The first Superbrands edition showcases 80 brands. Produced every 18 months, the second edition is due in January 2004. In Malaysia, Superbrands is operated by Chelsea Media Sdn Bhd.  A brand is given the Superbrands status after several months of research and decision-making. ...  In Malaysia's first edition of Superbrands, 34 out of the 80 brands are home-grown. These include Boh, Proton, Royal Selangor, Petronas, I from (I-Berhad) and Lim Kok Wing. ...  Malaysia's first edition sold some 13,000 copies. The brands that receive the Superbrands status buy between 50 and 700 copies themselves, to use as a marketing tool."</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Superbrands to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 01:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC) </li></ul>


 * Pinging Articles for deletion/Superbrands participants:, , , , , , and . Cunard (talk) 01:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your work uncovering those sources, . I note in NewsBank that the page reference for the Redwood article in The Sunday Times is "Page: Superbrands 2" which makes me think it could possibly be an advertorial feature/supplement. Unfortunately, my Times digital archive access doesn't include The Sunday Times so I'm not sure. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 07:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , thank you for reviewing the sources. The Sunday Times article says: "Page: Superbrands 2 | Section: Features". It is not an advertorial feature/supplement. I've added a link to the article. Cunard (talk) 08:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep – Meets WP:ORGDEPTH per legitimate news coverage and in one scholarly paper, as per the sources above. All of the sources above are from reliable sources, and all news sources include a byline from a staff writer of a publication with editorial oversight. The scholarly paper also includes the authors name. In other words, these are not reprinted press releases. I am a bit dismissive of source #5 above because it includes a fair amount of interview content, although it also contains some independent analysis. Additional sources for consideration are also available in the previous AfD discussion. North America1000 09:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per arguments made above. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 14:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Cunard has made some good arguments. Agree to keep. Peter303x (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.