Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Go ape

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. Great work by User:Kateshortforbob in finding references. Tijuana Brass (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go ape

Non notable company, reads like an ad, couldn't find reliable third party sources. ~Eliz81 ^(C) 08:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "Go Ape" has millions of unrelated Google hits and a few related ones. There were a couple of useful looking ones; I'll add them to to the article and see if that makes a difference. At the minute, it definitely reads like an ad. -- Kateshort forbob 10:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G11. Badly fails WP:COMPANY. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 11:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've added some references and other information. The company has a couple of claims to notability, but may still skate on the edge - I'm honestly not sure! Anyone like to take another look? -- Kateshort forbob 12:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC) ETA I think it should be moved to Go Ape which is currently a redirect to this article (??) if it's kept. -- Kateshort forbob 12:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I won't call speedy for G11, though the article is kind of spammy. References aren't terribly appropriate - some stuff from web page, an op-ed letter, and a couple of blurbs. Not really that notable based on those. Sorry. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep the sources that have been added seem to show it has at least minimal notability--since it has fairly widespread operations throughout the country. DGG (talk) 21:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd like to make a gentle appeal for a common sense interpretation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I have no interest in or connection with this company, its people, or its activities. Much though I agree the article did at the date of this edit "read[s] like an ad", a simple problem of incorrect writing style can be quickly and easily solved by a little copyediting. I see the article has been copyedited to address this particular concern since the AfD nomination. As regards this AfD, I do think following a process of improvement is more harmonious and moves the Wikipedia project more quickly towards the goal of encyclopedic content. The main issue I see in this AfD is the notability of the company. Notability per WP:COMPANY is established by independent coverage of the subject by reliable secondary sources. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. I think that's a very clear guideline. As regards this AfD, there is independent coverage of the company in reliable secondary sources, and at least two of them are cited in plain view in the article: (1) The BBC article that specifically discusses this company and its support from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, (2) The England Forestry Stategy 2006 by the UK Forestry Commission and the UK government's Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs that mentions this company. Citing two reliable secondary sources with independent coverage clearly establishes notability per the guideline. However, there are additional secondary sources for the notability of the company: (1) The (British) National Farmers Union NFU Countryside Magazine, August 2003 issue, has coverage of its 2003 awards ceremony at which Rural Tourist Attraction of the Year was given to the company. (2) The South West Tourism's coverage of the South West Tourism Awards for Excellence 2005, one of which was presented to the company by a UK government minister, [1] [2] I think these secondary sources do establish the notability of the company. I am trying to be constructive, and I would very much appreciate hearing other editors' further thoughts. - Neparis (talk) 23:59, 21 November 2007 (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.