Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bev (company)

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:06, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bev (company)[edit]

[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)

Not corresponding WP:NCORP and WP:RELIABLE. Obvious WP:PROMO and WP:COI. 多少战场龙 (talk) 10:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sourcing meets WP:NCORP and the company is notable for being a rare female-led company in the male dominated alcohol business. Addresses Wikipedia's gender bias. However, nom looks like a sock. New account, short history of similar token edits, almost all reverted, then uses Twinkle to nominate this, citing multiple policies that would be unfamiliar to newcomers. I think this is a bad faith nomination to hide the fact that the actual target is another article I wrote, Ragy Thomas, the CEO of a company with a history of being targeted by socks. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Electiondata/Archive. WP:NOTHERE TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:59, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not achieved if it is female led company. In real world that might be a thing, but on Wikipedia notability is based on citations. Samanthany (talk) 00:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Timpleton - I don't know you. I'm not familiar with any other wikipedians here or there. I pointed out below what problems does the page have. nothing personal. I'm not here because of you as you think. 多少战场龙 (talk) 08:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wine, Companies, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:39, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - The First Forbes article is good and is by Staff writer. The remaining articles are mostly about the founder, rather than the compamy. Samanthany (talk) 00:46, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Samanthany the first forbes article also has significant problems, which I addressed in a separate comment below. 多少战场龙 (talk) 08:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Samanthany: I originally thought that an article about the founder would make more sense, but wanted to wait until there's more coverage of her besides describing her role with the company. I added a redirect for Alix Peabody, per Women in Red. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - the company is notable and famous. The nomination is kind of strange. There are many great weblinks, news stories and history behind the company to keep in here. Nomatter No no (talk) 07:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This account was created on 29 August 2022 and has zero edits. 多少战场龙 (talk) 08:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - thanks but no thanks. No socks welcome here. Also, @多少战场龙:, your editing history is also suspicious. Care to explain how you decided to make these two articles your first Twinkle AfD nominations, and how you learned so much about policy and syntax in just a month of adding Wiki-links that were almost all reverted? TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtempleton AfD discussions are created for article discussions, not for user's discussions. your behavior is quite interesting as you don't follow WP:NPA. Be careful. 多少战场龙 (talk) 07:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since this is a company, NCORP criteria applies. I could find nothing that approaches NCORP criteria. Forbes staff [1] perhaps could be regarded as a reliable independent source, however I didn't find it to be independent or deep enough, as at least half of the article is produced by the comments of the Bev's founder, that is a mix of an article and an interview. Another Forbes staff article [2] is also mainly constructed with the comments of Bev's founder and the comments of Bev's investors, with some information regarding Bev's founder biography (unrelated to the Bev). The coverage itself is passing, not truly secondary (because of multiple comments that resemble interview style) and not corresponding this criterion: Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth WP:ORGCRIT 多少战场龙 (talk) 08:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:NCORP, I also found evaluations of the company product, e.g. Paste Magazine, PopSugar, Wine Spectator. Also, a 2019 Money article about the founding and growth of the company (with some independent content), 2021 news from Fortune about Halle Berry investing (with some independent content) (also blurbed in People), 2022 coverage in AdWeek, a 2021 LA Times article about the industry with coverage of the company, and a brief mention in Wine Spectator in 2021 coverage of the industry, "In June, the L.A.–based canned wine brand Bev became the official canned wine of the Rose Bowl Stadium and will be served at all events, from concerts to sporting events, and even the monthly Rose Bowl Flea Market." Beccaynr (talk) 02:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Beccaynr which of those media mentions you mentioned are independent, reliable and addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth? 多少战场龙 (talk) 07:21, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bad-faith nomination by a suspicious account. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:39, 1 September 2022 (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.