Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Millie's Cookies (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 keep. Stifle (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Millie's Cookies

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

Not notable. Seems more like advertising than anything else. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sources already in the article alone demonstrate satisfying WP:NOTABILITY. It even gets international coverage, like from The Times of Malta. [1] An article on a notable topic looking like an advertisement is a matter of article improvement, not deletion.
Delete 2 extant sources - 1 is a broken link and original site finds no mention of article on search, other simply mentions a staffing change ... fails GNG BlueSalix (talk) 04:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, WP:GNG makes it very clear sources don't have to be online. Just because a link to a source went dead doesn't magically mean the source never existed. As far as your "staff change" point, I suppose you are referring to the Manchester Evening News article which goes into very in-depth coverage of Millie's Cookies as well as the staff change easily demonstrating passing GNG, not just a "mention." You've also ignored the significant coverage from the The Times of Malta article above.--Oakshade (talk) 05:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, importantly, see also WP:NRVE, where it states "The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable." Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Was notable in 2006, is still notable now. Millie's Cookies can be found in many major retail centres, like the Bullring in Birmingham, and the Oracle here in Reading (which explains why I've heard of them), which is indicative of WP:ORG being at least partially met. Its marketing director did a Q&A with Marketing Week, although that probably isn't indicative of any further notability. The Times of Malta is a good source, and goes beyond being routine. Likewise the Manchester Evening News source. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. Passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include:

Manchester Evening News
Marketing Week
Times of Malta
Dorset Business Magazine
British Baker magazine
Times of Malta

– Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:21, 28 January 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.