Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superior Taste Award


 * 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 02:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Superior Taste Award

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Insufficent notability ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It might look spammy because all jury organizations are linked externally, but it's an award given out by a notable organization with notable judges which is the main thing that makes an award notable. - Mgm|(talk) 11:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, what makes something notable is being covered in some amount of detail in reliable sources independent of the subject. Bongo  matic  05:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello, sorry when my first article is not sufficient, however consulting Wikipedia has helped me so often during the last two or three years that I wanted to do something in return. I did my best to follow the guidelines and hints, so now I do not understand, what is wrong with my article. I'd be happy if you could tell me why it is insufficient. I've seen many articles (e.g. look at "degustation") that were quite short, too. So is it length? Or the wrong links (externally linked instead of Wikipedia links)? Thanks for helping ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joheba (talk • contribs) 22:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The key to content additions and new article creation is wp:notability. The basis for notability is substantial coverage in independent sources. All I see for this subject is a press release from the organization and citations to the organization itself. If there is substantial coverage in independent sources like magazines, newspapers, or books, that would demonstrate the subject meets guidelines for inclusion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  Aitias   // discussion 00:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unable to find coverage of the award . . . mainly press releases by companies whose products had received it. Happy to be contradicted if such sources exist. Bongo  matic  05:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand and futrther source. There does appear to be enough about the award and the organization to improve the article (Award, Organization).  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Linking to a Google search is quite unhelpful. The comments above indicate that editors have already looked in the web and news for article hits, but have found that the references do not constitute significant coverage of the award in independent sources (press releases are not deemed to be independent). The number of WP:GHITS is not an indicator of notability, so if you think that one or more items in your linked searches actually demonstrate notability, please indicate the sources themselves. Bongo  matic  23:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. There are some potential sources found by a Google News search, some of which are press releases, but many of which are independent coverage. The problem seems to be that most of the ones from publications that I recognise as the sort of sources that confer notability are passing mentions in articles about winners of the award, such as this in The Economic Times, this in Komsomolskaya Pravda and this in The Star. This appears to have more direct coverage of the award but I'm afraid I can't make much sense of Hungarian. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. A normal award, doesn't famous at all. 98.119.177.171 (talk) 06:11, 25 February 2009 (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.