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 article contains a lot of sources, but all of them seem to be some combination of promotional, too closely connected, or insignificant. A WP:Before was admittedly something I couldn't do in depth, because I don't live in the United Kingdom and most of my searches either came up with nothing or results for Boost (drink), an American company. I could be wrong, but I'm not seeing significant enough coverage of this company—and the article itself feels vaguely promotional, going into detail about flavours and employees where it doesn't seem necessary. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Like TLC I also had problems doing a BEFORE. The Yorkshire Post and Times articles are mostly about the CEO, but they do of course mention the company too. The Irish News article is about the company, so that's one sigcov in RS. The rest are not helpful for proving notability -- they're all routine coverage and in niche publications (Scottish Grocer), affiliated (Leeds United), directories (gov.uk) online retailers of the company's products (Approved Foods), and really kind of iffy stuff that looks like press release publishers, etc. Really the Times, Yorkshire Post, and Irish News are apparently the sum total of non-routine/non-niche coverage, and two of those are about the CEO and one of those two is pretty close to being an interview. Maybe that's enough to just tip the scales? To me it's not quite enough yet, but I'm willing to be convinced. —valereee (talk) 18:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I know I shouldn’t be mentioning WP:OTHERSTUFF, but we have an article on Boost (chocolate bar) (which I would argue is as notable as Boost Drinks) which only has four sources. A lot of the articles related to food brands and companies on Wikipedia have hardly any sources but that doesn’t mean they should be deleted (examples: Wotsits, Pom-Bear, Koala's March, Stimorol, Duc d'O, Dunbia, Bee Cheng Hiang, etc). Sahaib3005 (talk) 20:15, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sahaib3005, it's not the number of sources. It's the number of quality sources. What I (and most editors) want to see are at least 3 incidents of significant coverage in reliable sources, at least two of which are neither local nor niche. Four is more than enough if they're high-quality. —valereee (talk) 20:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But, yeah, that candy bar may not be notable. It's tricky when you're searching from an area that the product isn't sold in, so maybe someone in those areas can find some sig cov. —valereee (talk) 20:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13(talk) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Article is in a poor state, but I believe that the sum total of the coverage just scrapes over the threshold for notability. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:27, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There appears to be enough content in this Yorkshire Post article. Coupled with everything else I think notability has been established. NemesisAT (talk) 23:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MrsSnoozyTurtle and @NemesisAT, which three sources do you think provide support for notability for the company? The Yorkshire Post and Times articles are mostly about the CEO, The Irish News article is about the company, so that's one sigcov in RS. The rest are not helpful for proving notability -- they're all routine coverage in very small niche publications that aren't themselves notable enough to have an article (Scottish Grocer), affiliated (Leeds United), directories (gov.uk) online retailers of the company's products (Approved Foods), and really kind of iffy stuff that looks like press release publishers, etc. What are you seeing that would be three instances of sigcov in RS about the company? —valereee (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria.
For example, someone mentioned the Yorkshire Post article above - this article discusses Yorkshire as a place for entrepreneurs and lists four business to make its point. The "case study" on Boost is really a puff piece with all the information provided by the founder, fails WP:ORGIND. Someone else mentioned the Irish News reference which describes providing grants to local community groups and where Boost appears to be involved. It doesn't provide any in-depth information on the company, just a quote from a company exec, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The other references are similarly lacking in either in-depth info on the company or on Independent Content.
I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 21:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Telegraph story is an interview with the CEO, which wouldn't be something that can prove the notability of the company. The first Yorkshire Post is also a story about the CEO, not the company. The second YP is an article about business in Yorkshire, Boost is one of multiple businesses mentioned, maybe significant enough to put an otherwise borderline case over the hump, if we're being really generous, so that's one, but the other two need to be very strong indeed, and both neither local nor niche. The Times is a story about the CEO. The first Irish News is significant coverage of the company in a RS, so for me that's two. The second IN is a bare mention in an article about a fundraiser. The first Belfast Telegraph is behind a paywall for me but appears to be generated from a press release? Ditto second BT? This is why we ask for WP:THREE. Your three best sources, the three that you feel clearly prove notability. When you give us those three and just those three, it makes it easier for other editors to assess notability. If we instead have to wade through nine, some of which are iffy for proving notability, it can make some of us feel a bit cranky. :D —valereee (talk) 13:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sahaib3005 When you say "All those should be enough to meet the notability requirements ", I'm not sure if you mean that *each* reference meets the notability criteria of if you are considering them *collectively*. I've already pointed out in my !vote above that neither the Yorkshire Post not the Irish News references meet NCORP. But if you mean they should be considered collectively, then no, NCORP (specifically the WP:SIRS section) says "An individual source must meet all of these criteria to be counted towards establishing notability". I also disagree with valereee's generosity in saying that the second YP reference might squeeze past the criteria - all of the info is provided by the company or the CEO, fails ORGIND. The second Irish News reference also relies entirely on the marketing info provided by the CEO and the company. It is a puff piece and fails ORGIND. HighKing++ 14:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that the sources that are about the CEO also cover the company in depth (but that is just my opinion). Sahaib3005 (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, lets assume they do - but because all of the information is being provided by the CEO therefore a PRIMARY source with no opinion/analysis/etc subsequently provided by the journalist/author the article fails ORGIND (which is what I said above). HighKing++ 18:55, 9 November 2021 (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.
