Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ace Cider

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. MBisanz ^talk 21:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ace Cider

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

There's zero notable about this company. A search for reliable sources comes up with nothing and the article is just a glorified advert for their products. Adamant1 (talk) 06:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete basically an advertisement DGG ( talk ) 22:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cleaned out the promo portions (list of cider types, mainly). Added a book reference and replaced two local newspaper links with webarchive links. Meets WP:CORP and WP:GNG and there is WP:SIGCOV. More can be done to improve the article, but the subject is notable. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 20:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm unsure about this one, as there is some degree of coverage even though it's mostly in review pieces. The argument would be stronger for an article on the company that produces it, as they've got stuff like this article in the LA Times. But it is still not a truly strong argument... PK650 (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability not established. References that were added, while RS, are passing mentions. Two local newspaper articles are interviews with the founder. Please review WP:NCORP sourcing requirements, they are not met. Renata (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some additional sources: [1], [2], [3]. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the cleanup work by Glane23 Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Seems to barely pass WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 01:01, 29 February 2020 (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.