Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike's Hard Lemonade Co.

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mike's Hard Lemonade Co.

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No evidence of any notability and searches reveal very little better. Two of the refs are their own web-site. Another ref is an item about the sale of the company and the other is clearly a press release. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Really well known drink brand in the United States as per Reuters. Coverage exists but may be initially difficult in a google search given the overwhelming amount of promotional/commerce-related hits one would expect, but e.g. there's coverage of its ads with Adweek, TheDrum, and Adweek, other coverage like Deadspin, Elite Daily on some pop-up in LA, Chicago Business Journal, Chicago Tribune, CNBC, etc. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Others: Crains Chicago Business, Globe and Mail, Ad Age, MSN Money. If you search on the various ad websites (Ad Age, Adweek, etc.) there are many stories not yet linked there, too -- I don't think others are necessary though). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Rhododendrites; it's a well-known and widely-available drink brand, covered by Newsweek as long ago as 2001. XOR'easter (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- More sources from 2001 [1][2] and 2002 [3][4]; and a mention from more recently. XOR'easter (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum Sifting through LexisNexis, for the fun of it, I found 995 exact-text matches for "Mike's Hard Lemonade", including this 2013 piece in the New York Times. XOR'easter (talk) 16:16, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum to the addendum I should add that of the 995 matches on LexisNexis, 806 are for newspapers, and 21 are for "industry trade press". There's a strong representation from Canada, particularly in the earlier years; e.g., articles in The Vancouver Sun from 3 August 2001 and 2 December 2003, and The Toronto Star on 19 April 1998. The older stuff isn't all online, that I can tell, apart from archival databases. An amusing quote from a 28 August 1999 profile in the Financial Post: "'The focus groups have shown us that the use of a man's name, and particularly a name that sounds down-to-earth or 'basic,' coupled with the word 'hard,' creates a very compelling image for younger members of the adult population." More recently, there was a fair bit of reporting on their $350-million acquisition by Labatt. Many of the hits are just mentions, where Mike's Hard Lemonade is used as a prototypical example of an alcopop (but it does seem to be one of the two or three standard examples). Some go into more depth. I will try to sift further if I get a chance; after all, what better use is there for institutional access to LexisNexis? XOR'easter (talk) 22:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep between the company and the brand Mike's Hard Lemonade (a redirect to that page), there's certainly enough coverage. Rhododendrites and XOR'easter have found links so I don't have to. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:13, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above found sources. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the above arguemnts amount to WP:MUSTBESOURCES. It's not enough to deduce they're out there somewhere. The sources have to be identified and cited. The ones offered so far are general articles about the beverage business that mention Mike's Hard Lemonade alongside several other brands. Or they are superficial routine coverage, such as "Mike's Hard Lemonade introduces 8-ounce cans", clocking in at all of 243 words. Those sources fail WP:CORP and WP:GNG. This is a run-of-the-mill company that, minus the breathless boosterism the fluff reporting, basically does business the same as any other brand in the same niche. What facts we do have about it can be placed in an article like Malt drink, since what we have here is a typical example of a company that makes a niche beverage. I'd flip, and support keeping it I were shown sources (non-trival) that met all of the minimum criteria at WP:ORGCRIT. Right now this company's claim to fame is that they have grown to a certain size. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I thought this would be obvious, but Dennis Bratland makes a good point about the sources being pretty weak. However, my search turned up enough coverage about its ads to convince me this isn't an obvious delete, but is a weak keep. I thought that article talking about the ABC affiliate in Chicago not airing its ads, but showing its competitors ads, was interesting and should count towards the coverage. I also think that being an industry leader should also be taken into account, but I could be wrong about that. I think the coverage squeaks by for notability.Sandals1 (talk) 14:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Might be a "leader" in the sub-sub-sub niche of malted lemonade alcoholic beverages, but that niche is not an "industry". And whatever the brand is a leader in, our sources are the ones who should be telling us that matters. If being a "leader" in whatever category you want to call it is significant, then we should we reading significant coverage about Mike's Hard Lemonade, with that the main topic and the coverage telling us things about Mike's Hard Lemonade. They could be the least selling product in their category and be notable if the sources cover them. The article about the rejected ad is mostly about the TV station that rejected the ad, and about other companies who also had rejected or controversial ads. It's about a dozen paragraphs long and only three or four sentences are actually about Mike's.
  Somebody needs to clearly cite even one news, magazine, or book source with significant, in-depth coverage of Mike's Hard Lemonade itself, not other things, and not routine announcements and trivial coverage, enumerated at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Examples of trivial coverage. It shound't be this hard to scrape together sources for a topic if it is really notable. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:47, 1 August 2018 (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.