Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SnackNation

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. Enigma^msg 03:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SnackNation[edit]

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

Can't see how this article meets GNG. Aside from the fact that it's a paid-for advert, it has three sources. The first is itself - neither independent nor reliable. The second is an interview that's primary and bears all the hallmarks of a PR-placement. The third looks like a blog. Even if one buys 3, that's still nowhere near significant coverage.

p.s. thanks to Smartse for sorting my messed-up nomination. KJP1 (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

_{Note This wasn't listed properly the first time round, but is now. SmartSE (talk) 17:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)}[reply]

Delete - non-notable company that fails the strengthened WP:NCORP guideline and WP:CORPDEPTH. The article suffers from a severe lack of in depth sourcing, and a good faith search turned up no potential sources I would qualify as in-depth. In addition, the company has and makes no real claim to encyclopedic significance.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. Wikipedia is not a yellow pages. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing - Sometimes, when wading through the submissions at Afc, one gets the impression many view it as just that! KJP1 (talk) 15:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KJP1 From my time at COIN, it seems that companies want the legitimacy that a Wikipedia page provides. Everybody wants a piece of the notability pie, and the google search algorithms don't hurt, either.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SamHolt6 - Exactly so. They want the kudos and the hits. It's also why they are quite prepared to have an article that contains criticism and isn't overtly "promotional". Both are very small prices to pay for presence on this site. My biggest concern is that some editors, rightly concerned about being welcoming to good faith newbies, underestimate the dangers to Wikipedia's reputation presented by the sheer amount of, often-undisclosed, paid-for and/or promotional drafts. In fairness to this submission, at least the COI's declared. KJP1 (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is best to take each article on its own merits. Sometimes when I get a little jaded, I take a break. But the statistics on the number of company/organization related articles that end up getting deleted at AfD must run close to 90%+ and this does indicate an underlying motive/problem HighKing⁺⁺ 16:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wholly promotional. WP:NOTADVERTISING. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 15:31, 22 May 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.