Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AvoDerm (2nd nomination)

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. The main problem here is a lack of engagement. Gargleafg has provides multiple sources which he claims establish notability; the particular sources he has raised have not been meaningfully discussed beyond "the article doesn't pass WP:NCORP/WP:GNG", making it difficult to establish any consensus regarding the validity/reliability/usefulness of these sources. I suggest that if this article is re-nominated in a few months, voters pay particular attention to the specific sources provided. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AvoDerm

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

Non-notable company. Article reads like an ad. No references, other than two external links to the company's own website. A google search comes up with no reliable sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Still no evidence of meeting WP:NCORP.― Padenton|✉ 18:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 18:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 18:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 01:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Technically, Padenton, WP:NCORP doesn't apply to AvoDerm, because it's not a company. Breeder's Choice Pet Foods is the company that offers the AvoDerm line of pet food, and Central Garden & Pet Co. is that company's parent. That's neither here nor there. A basic Google News search revealed a 2012 recall of AvoDerm pet food (1 2 3). It's also received a few passing (or slightly more than passing) mentions in other articles from prominent and reliable sources (1 2). Some reviews are pretty thorough (1 2). And, from the first deletion attempt this article went through, we can see that AvoDerm is mentioned in a number of book sources ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]). I think these are all enough to pass WP:GNG. The article in its current form is certainly bad. I think it just needs to be properly-sourced and rewritten. Gargleafg (talk) 06:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PRODUCT is part of WP:NCORP. NCORP isn't exclusive to companies, but also covers their products, which should generally be included in the company's article. ― Padenton|✉ 22:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep Per argument made above. Also, after reading this, I'm convinced it passes notability guidelines.~~ SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 11:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NPRODUCT and WP:GNG: All the sources I can find are passing mentions, which don't contribute to notability because they are not "significant coverage". The coverage on AvoDerm's recalls (the only significant coverage) are on the actual recalls itself, not AvoDerm. Esquivalience ^t 20:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. My dog ate my encyclopedia article. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)Oh, my, this has been running so long, I forgot I started it! I didn't intend to double-dip. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sources provided by Gargleafg appear to help the subject pass WP:GNG. Books source in particular are convincing NCORP may or may not apply. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 13:20, 6 June 2015 (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.