Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isle of Mull Cheddar

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. With no further input after relisting, and the initial proposer's objection seemingly overcome, the result was Keep. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isle of Mull Cheddar[edit]

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

Tagged as needing sources since 2009. The article's only current sources are the websites of the manufacturer and a retailer. I had a go at finding in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources but came up empty. Psychonaut (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added some reliable sources and expanded the article. There are multiple instances where it has had some newspaper coverage, so it passes WP:GNG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 09:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't call any of those sources, except for the Sunday Times article, "in-depth" coverage. But I guess that article, plus the totality of information in the others, pushes the subject over the notability threshold. Thanks for improving the article! —Psychonaut (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Psychonaut: in that case would you like us to close this Afd early as 'withdrawn'? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - If that's a thing now then sure, I'd have no objection. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, I can't say if it's a sure thing. I'd be inclined to keep but there's no harm in letting this run its course and seeing what others say. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @Psychonaut: You can withdraw or change your !vote to 'keep'. I would recommend the second way, as it enables others to give their thoughts, as evidence of notability can be challenged. Relisting for further participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 02:56, 7 March 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.