Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cawy Bottling 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cawy Bottling Company

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

De-PRODed, but does not meet notability criteria. ~~WP:SPA account that~~ The editor or this article has removed tags on the article for notability is not helping either. Two refs don't meet requirements for in-depth coverage and I can't find anything using Google. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here's a Spanish language source. Our article Materva about the company's best known product, has 17 references, several of which also discuss the company. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found a lot of interesting links via scholar and books, regarding lawsuits and the like, plus the pre-history in Cuba isn't easy to dig up but exists (obviously). WP:V doesn't force a time table, and WP:GNG appears to exist by the sheer volume of mentions that have yet to be sifted through. Difficulty isn't a good determiner of whether or not an article should be kept. I would also note that the nominator is wrong to call the article's creator an WP:SPA. Making the claim smacks of bad faith and poisoning the well. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Spanish language article is about Vincent Cossío not the company, but it does mention the company. It only makes brief mention of the subject. Dennis Brown has not provided these supposed sources to meet V, which isn't the threshold of inclusion. I was simply pointing out that the editor has an inordinate interest in things about this subject, and has not followed Wikipedia guidelines for removal of maintenance templates, but I will retract the SPA statement. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Good. And there's nothing "inordinate" about such an interest; the creator clearly has lots of interests. I just wrote Stephen Glosecki, and you might as well say that I have an "inordinate interest" in things related to Alabama, or Old English, or death--and I'd ask you what you meant with "inordinate". Drmies (talk) 19:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Squeaks by, as far as I'm concerned (and thank you Cullen). Drmies (talk) 19:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No hits in Google News and nothing really in Books, though there was some court case. I only found local news from a cursory search engine test. The few mentions in El Nuevo Herald are either passing or, in the linked article above, about the founder and not the company itself. I would like to see the sources that make it notable (regardless of whether they're added to the article). That one Miami Herald mention is a footnote in the linked Epic Journey book (a passing mention). SPIN is also a passing mention. Article topic doesn't pass the search engine test for notability (the GNG). Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ♔ 17:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough there to be notable. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:55, 20 April 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.