Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Kimball's Milk Street

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Kimball's Milk Street

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

To me it appears as if the whole article is sourced to mentions of a single lawsuit in various papers. I think that this single event was not notable enough to warrant an entire article on the subject. However I am using AFd instead of PROD so that experienced editors can give thier input on the issue. Elektricity (talk) 09:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even if one lawsuit was the cause of all the media coverage, the stuff that establishes notability is significant media coverage. There is certainly significant coverage. Binksternet (talk) 09:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Binksternet can you look at the article in your free time? I think the coverage is not that extensive to be honest. Elektricity (talk) 09:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I already looked at it before I gave my opinion here. Extensive coverage. Binksternet (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of sources that discuss the subject in detail. Easily passes WP:ORGDEPTH. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Suitable RS to pass WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH, however, a Keep decision does not preclude clean-up. The article could use some tidying and improvement. Chetsford (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the references are promotional and rely extensively on interviews with Kimball with no original or intellectually independent content/option/analysis and therefore fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. While Kimball appears notable, notability is not inherited. There is also confusion over the name of the organization - it appears to be "CPK Media" and it is not clear that the organization named in this topic and "CPK Media" (the company being sued) are the same thing. Also, illegal conduct is excluded for the purposes of establishing notability as per WP:ILLCON. So we're left with a bunch of PR releases and interviews with Kimball - which also fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. There's a difference between sources that can be used to establish notability and the lower standard of sources that can be used as citations to support facts within an article, and not one of the sources here meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You say "...Most of the references...", yet many are simply reporting facts about the organization, facts which were not derived from an interview with Kimball.

You say "...So we're left with a bunch of PR releases and interviews with Kimball........sources that can be used to establish notability and the lower standard of sources that can be used as citations to support facts within an article...", yet the references that report basic facts about the subject include houstonchronicle.com, washingtonpost.com, boston.com, bostonglobe.com, denverpost.com, and bostonmagazine.com, which are not PR releases and interviews with Kimball.

You say "...illegal conduct is excluded for the purposes of establishing notability...", yet that is not the basis of the notability. Notability is established without that, and with that, the subject is even more notable.

You say "...Topic fails WP:NCORP and GNG...", yet it clearly passes WP:NCORP per "... is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources..." because houstonchronicle, washingtonpost, boston, bostonglobe, denverpost, and bostonmagazine are excellent secondary sources that are reliable, and independent of the subject. In fact, the subject passes many, many of WP:NCORP's "...considered notable if..." where it only needs one. And as for passing GNG, well the subject obviously does that, and easily. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:39, 1 March 2018 (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.