Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bunsters

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 delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bunsters

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

Small local food company -- so small, it needed to run a $65,000 crowd-funding campaign. The strongest source here is the Daily Mail. Calton | Talk 02:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear advertising alone which is always unacceptable. SwisterTwister talk 19:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Topic is not notable. Refernces are not independent third party as they mostly include facts and data from company sources. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 21:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Crowd funding does not make a subject not notable, it might actually make it more notable. The topic itself is not inherently not notable. Not sure that it is clear advertising or promotional. The style is not self congratulatory and the tone is pretty neutral, certainly better than many other articles we consider. I think there is enough for this one to scrape over the line. The real question possibly should be should the target of the article be the company or their Shit the Bed sauce. The article could be strengthened a bit with more about their lead sauce, for which there are some more references? Their sauce is possible technically more notable than the company. I might be convinced otherwise on the basis of TOOSOON perhaps. Aoziwe (talk) 11:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete blatant advertising from a single purpose editor who created the article. LibStar (talk) 11:35, 11 February 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.