Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurora Organic Dairy

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. Cirt (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aurora Organic Dairy

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete, Appears to be WP:COATRACK Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Serves little purpose but to disparage the company. Perhaps the company is notable enough to meet WP:CORP, but I think a complete rewrite from a neutral point of view would be necessary. Deli nk (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per [1], [2], [3], [4], www.naturalnews.com/022133_organic_dairy_USDA_the_USDA.html ^{[unreliable fringe source?]}, [5], [6], [7], [8], and more. Joe Chill (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep Not so much a coatrack as an attack piece bringing up valid issues in an extremely biased way. A quick Google search brings up multiple independent sources, including the Chicago Tribune, MSNBC, and Business Wire, so the subject appears to meet notability requirements. But the article can't stand as it is. At very least it should be reduced to a stub by excising all the Cornucopia Institute stuff, which is certainly not an independent source - they have an agenda as relates to this company. It could be used in a properly filled-out article, but only with great care to keep the article encyclopedic and NPOV. But if it's easier to simply delete the article (I'm not sure I feel like editing it down, after all, so why should anyone else), then I really don't see a problem with that either. Ipoellet (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability clearly established through extensive coverage in national media. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because spending a few brief moments clicking Google News at the top of the AFD, showed 490 hits of this company being mentioned in the news. Always search BEFORE you nominate. Dream Focus 03:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before you jump to conclusions read the original inception of the page. It violated WP:COATRACK. Remember always review the article when it was nominated before chastising people.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see What to do about coatracks which explains that the appropriate corrective action is to trim the inappropriate material and that deletion nominations should be reserved for extreme cases when the underlying topic is not notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

point taken...It does however say that we are not required to try and even out the bias. I had considered it to need a complete rewrite. hence why I opened this thread. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evidently notable. NPOV is achieved by editing, not deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The current version of the article is fair and neutral and worth keeping. - Eastmain (talk) 16:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Eastmain's comment. C628 (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is clear. Current version is much improved over the version nominated for AfD, and does not seem excissively non-neutral to me. Furhte editing and improvement may be needed, but this isn't a case for deletion if it ever was -- stubifing would IMO have been better than an AfD now if the original editor did not wish to find, source and add enough info to make this truly neutral. DES ^(talk) 20:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although there has been controversy about the company, it is still notable. Readers will make their own judgments about whether the milk is properly called organic, or not, but Wikipedia can present a WP:NPOV account for those interested. The article does that. --DThomsen8 (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.