Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ardagh Castle cheese

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 No Consensus to delete. There is no consensus below as to whether the sources are sufficient to support an article or not. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ardagh Castle cheese[edit]

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

Non notable cheese maker, only claim to significance is a Bronze medal in the 2011 British Cheese awards. Fails WP:ORG. Mt king ^(edits) 22:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The cheese is very notable within Ireland and is a renowned brand. It has been included in a Bord Bia pamphlet on Irish cheeses and it has also been included in a book on Irish cheese - both referenced in the article and both independent of the source material as per WP:GNG since both works were not produced by anyone affiliated with the creator. The cheese has also won international awards, for example a bronze medal at this years British Cheese Awards 2011. --HighKing (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bord Bia (the Irish Food board) who's mission is to grow the success of a world class food and horticulture industry by providing strategic market development, promotion and information services. can't be called an independent source, they are a marketing agency. The book also (from what i have been able to find on-line about it, website, facebook page etc) has the feel of part marketing effort. Mt king ^(edits) 00:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lets face it - cheese producers are local and more often than not, that doesn't make international news. So in the context of cheese, we're not going to get a lot of sources. But in this case we have two valid secondary sources. The Irish Food board (Bord Bia) is a valid secondary source. They're an official government organisation, established by an act of parliment, involved in the promotion and development of Irish food. They have a focus on Irish food and they are experts. It's not some fanboy cheese site (they do exist). There's also a book on Irish cheese. Another valid secondary source - and guess what? Ardagh Castle have a full chapter. Those references satisfy the requirements of WP:GNG. --HighKing (talk) 01:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nominator's rebuttal. Side note, I originally asked for a CSD on this article and firmly maintain that it should be deleted. M Magister Scienta ^talk (18 November 2011)

Extra Super-Strong Comment You say I originally asked for a CSD on this but neglected to mention that it was removed by an admin who stated the article was notable. And I've since added another reference from an article in a newspaper. --HighKing (talk) 17:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (ec!) Cases like this where there are some sources available are always going to be subject to each !voters opinion as to whether it clears the notability bar. This one doesn't reach my bar, even considering its inclusion as one of over 50 cheesemakers in a book about Irish cheeses, and an article in a local newspaper, and after winning a bronze award. I'd suggest trying again in a few years once it's won several gold awards and been written about in a national paper or two. —SMALL JIM 00:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The criteria for inclusion in GNG is the coverage and that's been met. The consideration of awards is only if there hasn't been good coverage in secondary sources, it's used for athletes when there's no articles devoted specifically to talking about them in depth. WP:ATHLETE isn't what's being considered here. Dmcq (talk) 00:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep - Per the book and newspaper sources in the article. The general notability guideline is being met. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Sources seem to suffer from being hyper-local, non-independent, promotional, or simply lacking in significant coverage of the topic.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:32, 28 November 2011 (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.