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. Materialscientist (talk) 05:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clover Food Lab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non-notable company lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:COMPANY. Referenced articles are hardly significant in nature and only mention company in passing. reddogsix (talk) 01:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – I can't make out any claim to notability here, even in the subject's most favorable light. It mostly receives passing coverage in a single source, the Boston Globe. Not only is its coverage insignificant, it's not from multiple reliable sources. Research aside, the article is currently supported by passing mentions in news stories, a non-notable civic award, and a couple of blogs. JFHJr (㊟) 01:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete — Article fails claim of notability, and almost seems just too promotional. C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 01:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - With revisions, article claims better notability. Could be broken into sections though, appropriately tagged. C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 02:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've expanded the article and added several more independent, reliable sources that give more exclusive and in-depth coverage to the subject. The sources I've encountered are virtually invariably favorable in their coverage of the subject. There are some annoyances covered in the Boston Globe article here that I will try to incorporate soon. Emw (talk) 18:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the article to include mention of the annoyances. Hopefully this along with the expanded content that isn't accolades address concerns that the article seems too promotional. Emw (talk) 23:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (post revamp) – Great work on the sources. They're much better, though some sources are still simply passing mention. For example, 1) just because it was a WSJ writer that called it among the top ten food trucks doesn't mean it's substantial or even notable coverage (is this some kind of noteworthy mention? it's certainly not in-depth) [1]; 2) the opinion of the Boston mayor really isn't important or encyclopedic, and it definitely doesn't help the company WP:INHERIT notability [2] (this cite is used twice, however it's a passing mention in total); 3) a local award simply isn't supported by this [3] is neither noteworthy nor in-depth coverage; 4) another shared local award by a magazine is not notable in the slightest, and the coverage is not in-depth at any rate [4]. I'm still convinced this subject fails WP:COMPANY even with the added support because it's still not significant. And it does still seem promotional. At any rate, I wasn't going on the existing coverage offered in the article, I did my due diligence elsewhere also. JFHJr (㊟) 00:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the in-depth coverage of Clover Food Lab in "Everything will be different tomorrow" in Technology Review, "An experiment in making better food" in The Boston Globe, and "Because you can’t eat architecture" from the Boston Society of Architects is enough to clearly meet the notability criteria. Those sources -- which have been cited in the article -- seem like a clear example of multiple independent, reliable sources giving significant coverage of the subject. The sources you've enumerated critiques of are not being used as the foundation of the article's claim to notability, so invoking WP:CORPDEPTH doesn't seem quite valid or relevant here to me. Rather, those sources are used for supplementary detail that I think makes sense to include given the article's scope and subject area. Emw (talk) 05:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - nice rewrite with many sources to demonstrate notability. Passes wp:gng. It still needs some work on its promotional tone, though, but that is an addressable issue. Chris (talk) 23:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how having a paragraph that mentions various accolades for the subject could give the impression that the article is promotional at a glance, but these accolades are all reliably sourced. Other than that I don't see anything that could raise legitimate flags about the article being generally promotional in tone, but maybe I'm wrong here. I've added some more negative coverage with this edit. On the whole I think the article tends to be slightly less favorable towards the subject than the weight of coverage in reliable sources. Could you specify how/where the article seems non-neutral? Thanks for the feedback, Emw (talk) 00:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think I was a bit mistaken here. Especially after the edit you linked to, the article is well-sourced and doesn't go beyond the facts in order to stress certain viewpoints. Chris (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It easily meets the standards for inclusion after the rewrite, also The Boston Meetup likes it (though that isn't a keep reason). --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A consumer business that's apparently attracted sufficient notice as a feature of local culture. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:54, 14 November 2011 (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.