Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malibu (rum)

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malibu (rum)

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

Not a notable topic - no significant independent coverage. NYT and BBC references do not cover this topic - these are essentially smoke screen. Two YouTube references are not acceptable RS. Steve Quinn (talk) 20:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Considering that I can go to any corner shop in the UK and find a bottle of Malibu for sale, I find it rather crazy that this has been nominated. A search on google news for "malibu" and "rum" comes back with nearly 15,000 hits. I agree that the article is a pile of crap, but delete? No. Miyagawa (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm not sure how many Google news hits this gets, but Google hits are not part of the notability criteria. At best, this suggests the product exists. Also, when reviewing sources there appears to be no significant coverage, meaning it is not the subject of these articles - only passing mentions. There is nothing noteworthy here. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] There's also quite a few where there are only a mention, and a heck of a lot of cocktail recipes. Miyagawa (talk) 17:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And before I forget New York Times; BBC News. Miyagawa (talk) 10:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:GNG - Company was worth 800 million dollar in 2002. References in articles from BBC, New York Times and Chicago Tribune, that are specifically about this company. Google and Highbeam search gave several hundred news items. Sufficient coverage in reliable sources. -- Taketa (talk) 06:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand – Very notable brand. — JFG ^talk 21:50, 6 July 2016 (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.