Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man Meat Fire

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. slakr^\ talk / 14:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Man Meat Fire

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable / fails GNG BlueSalix (talk) 03:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - ~~Appears to meet WP:CORPDEPTH~~ meets WP:GNG per:

BBC
BBC
BBC
The Grocer (subscription required) Full page independent article. (Preview here, scroll down on page)
US Fed News Service (business news)

– Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call that depth. Minor mentions on the BBC and a press release from the firm that they have applied for a trademark? Philafrenzy (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ping User:Philafrenzy: Did you preview the full page, independent article from The Grocer? It appears you didn't include it in your analysis. Also, in this source, don't forget to click on the "transcript" button on the page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you? The first two are the same Dragons Den style pitch at different places, the third is a weblink only as far as I can see, the fourth is a decent article from The Grocer which I have read on Nexis and the fifth is a press release. It's not enough surely. Are we going to give an article to every firm that manages to get a low level of publicity for their product? This firm's product is more tasty than they are notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The third BBC source in my !vote above here is a radio broadcast that needs to be listened to, rather than read. Also, I don't consider BBC coverage to be "low level" whatsoever, as it broadcasts in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, and the Isle of Man. Furthermore, BBC has very high standards for journalistic objectivity, "to provide impartial public service broadcasting..." (quote per the BBC article). Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the individual BBC programme doesn't it? Being on screen for 5 minutes on a not very important BBC programme is not enough, otherwise every game show contestant would have an article. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage in independent sources has any depth of coverage. Fails WP:CORP. Too promotional without independent commentary. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hi User:SmokeyJoe: See the preview here (scroll down on the page after opening it) of the full page article in The Grocer (the Grocer article is paywalled). It's a full-page article by an independent, reliable source. I personally consider a full-page article about a product to be significant coverage. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be write. I see images of text that are significant coverage. The question is: Are they independent? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | soliloquize _ 04:31, 18 February 2014 (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.