Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blackmores

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. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 12:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blackmores[edit]

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

Does not satisfy corporate notability. References in article are not independent. Google search finds the usual vanity hits but no independent references. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert I am creating the Blackmores article as a stub for our Wikipedia editing club to work on tomorrow 7 Aug, hence the lack of sources and content. However I will search now for more legitimate sources now to maintain the article til then. JacintaJS (talk) 04:46, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:58, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:58, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Blackmores is a large and long-standing company, which is regularly in the news due in part to its controversial business model (eg, aggressively marketing 'complementary medicines'). Google searching 'Blackmores Australia' produces lots of non-promotional references in reliable sources. Searching 'Blackmores Australia scandal' also produces lots of decidedly non-promotional news stories. I'd suggest that this nomination be either withdrawn or speedy closed. Nick-D (talk) 06:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Nick-D; plenty of coverage both positive and negative about this company given their often controversial marketing strategies. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

User:Nick-D Considering I don't plan on adding more to this article til our group meets tomorrow, should I move it to draft space? JacintaJS (talk) 07:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a fine start to the article, and should remain where it is Nick-D (talk) 07:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nick-D Thanks for the advice JacintaJS (talk) 07:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG and WP:ORG, plenty of sources out there in googleland (should be able to make a snowman out of this afd:)), note that article afdd only 1 hour after creation, a bit of WP:BEFORE would have been nice, that said, JacintaJS, suggest a Template:Under construction be added to any other articles you create for the Wikipedia editing club with maybe a note on the talkpage. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I support the Template:Under construction and talkpage suggestion. User talk:Robert McClenon also suggested I start the article in draft space first, which makes sense too (hindsight being 20/20). Cheers everyone, I am still learning the ropes. JacintaJS (talk) 08:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of main stream media reliable secondary source material for solid WP:NEXIST. And, a lot of it not positive too (which will need to end up in the article for balance). Aoziwe (talk) 13:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets both WP:GNG and WP:NCORP easily. The article is obviously underdeveloped, but the topic is undoubtedly notable. -- Whats new?^(talk) 08:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is underclaiming. This is an internationally known major brand. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easily meets WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 00:43, 13 August 2017 (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.