Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beerenberg Farm

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The result was Keep - Nominator Withdrawn. After significant work by Canley to clean up the article and the eventual location of references which reasonably establish notability for the company, I am satisfied that this article now meets the required standard of WP:CORP. Kudos to those involved. Thewinchester ^(talk) 07:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Beerenberg Farm

Procedural nomination, article was previously CSD'd as G11 twice (but only one is showing in the logs for some reason??). Does not meet WP:CORP, and has no WP:RS to support any of the claims to notability made in the article. The article reads as self-promotion, and there are also paragraphs in the article which seem to be copyvio's straight from the companies website. Despite sufficient time being given after the request, the requestor has made no edits to the article since July 2 and there does not seem to be any sign that further improvments will be made. Thewinchester ^(talk) 10:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Thewinchester ^(talk) 10:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Another one for the TWinSwat. Almost died when i saw this, no asseratation of notability, google says bugger all on the topic. Twenty Years 11:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep but rewrite - Beerenberg is highly notable - it's probably one of Australia's most famous cottage brands - but the current version of the article reads like an ad. Reliable sources would be possible to locate. Orderinchaos 21:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep Needs a fairly extensive rewrite but could be brought to WP:CORP standard. I have left my earlier thoughts on the article talk page. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 22:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Need work to bring it up to standard and within WP policy. --Mikecraig 23:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Beerenberg Farm is a notable local landmark - a family owned roadside Jam stall that evolved into a multi-millon dollar export business. The story is worth telling, the family that owns it has been on the land since the adjoining town of Hahndorf was settled. It would be better served nonetheless if the article read less like an advertisement and more like a statement of fact.--Ozzybees 04:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment And if you can find some WP:RS to support the information within the article and the claim of notability consistent with WP:CORP, then I'll happily withdraw the AfD myself before it gets to the five day mark. The problem is that all three versions I've seen of this article to date constantly fail all the WP policies outlined in my opening deletion argument, and the article was re-created 60 days ago, last edited by the person requesting creation 8 days ago, and with no sign of any WP:RS to back up any of the content or claims, one has to ask the question exactly how long should we wait for this information to be forthcoming. The only reason this article is at AfD is because it's been speedied on multiple occasions and an attempt at a prod was contested in excess of 40 days ago (with no action to correct the issues). If the creating editor feels it so important for this article to remain, I would have hoped that references would have been added well before now. Thewinchester ^(talk) 14:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• The purpose of Articles for deletion is not to hold a gun to the head of the article and say "fix it up right now or it'll be deleted"; it is for you to do your research on the topic to begin with, rather than relying on the article (which may be shoddy) to tell you all you need to know. The alternative, as done here, is just downright sloppiness. Rebecca 00:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• I've done a basic search and I can't find anything good enough, and if I had access to Factiva I would have gone even deeper. I don't so I can't. The fact remains that all three incarnations of this article haven't met the required standard, so the question must be asked how long can should we put up with it. It's been demonstrated ample time has been allowed to fix it each time, and nothings been done. All I've seen so far are comments along the line of I know it's notable or WP:ILIKEIT, but these alone are not good enough for keeping it. It needs references to back up notability, and i've not seen any forthcoming. Thewinchester ^(talk) 01:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Articles for deletion is not cleanup. The fact that prior incarnations of this article have been sucky says nothing about their potential notability, nor does it (or has it ever) provided an excuse to delete the article. You've seen numerous South Australians (who are in a position to actually verify the notability of the subject, rather people who have NFI guessing at it) argue for its inclusion, and you've absolutely no right to rudely dismiss their (damned more valid) arguments as "WP:ILIKEIT". Rebecca 01:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep, seems to be plenty on Google about it, but it probably does need more sources and a lot of cleanup. Lankiveil 04:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC).
• Keep. Research, then nominate for deletion. Rebecca 00:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I am the author of the original article regarding this subject. I am astonished by some of the comments which have been made. I must say that Beerenberg is a highly reputable South Australian business, which I would suggest the majority of South Australians would consider worthy of an article. I can only say that anyone who wants to see the article removed should reconsider their view. Also, I note that the number of "keeps" outnumbers the number of "deletes". Thewinchester should consider this before endeavouring to delete this article. Fitzpatrickjm 06:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I've rewritten the article and added numerous inline citations, in my opinion, verifiable notability is asserted. I sometimes wonder what people who can't find anything on Google are actually searching for. --Canley 04:03, 15 July 2007 (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.