Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ouma Rusks

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. While many of the sources are indeed trivial or company based and the independent sourcing is thin, I accept that the the mweb article may be something to begin with and that the "keep" side therefore has enough merit for me not to call a policy-based delete on this one. The possibility of merging is still open to discussion on the article talkpage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ouma Rusks

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

The article is about a brand, and reads like an advert for it. It is indeed an advert for the brand. I think a more suitable article should be created for the company that makes the brand, and elaborate on it. Otherwise, unless Wikipedia is now a marketing platform, I don't see the need for brands having pages. Cartney23 (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added a number of references, and this does meet WP:GNG. I note that this article has been around since February 2006‎. Although tagged as appears to be written like an advertisement since February 2008, its notability was never questioned either with a tag or on its talk page. --Bejnar (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beskuit is the more important entry here, and mention can be made of Ouma rusks on its page as an example of that traditional food. Otherwise this page remains a brand advertisement. There is no reason the Ouma rusk should have its own page, especially since all the other rusks named on the Rusk page do not have their own individual pages. It’s also one of many iconic and famous brands in South Africa, yet the others do not have Wikipedia pages of their own. Ouma’s correct entry should be a mention in beskuit. Cartney23 (talk) 08:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not whether other rusks might be notable, it is whether Ouma Rusks is notable. --Bejnar (talk) 10:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ouma Rusks is a brand of beskuit. My argument is that it should be identified as such, on the beskuit page. There are other more notable SA (and even non-SA) brands, and they don't have their own pages. Because then it all boils down to an advert.Cartney23 (talk) 10:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it deserves mention on the beskuit page. then make the appropriate edit. This is not a discussion of other rusks, but about Ouma Rusks. The article is not an advertisement, Ouma rusks (1) created a company (2) represents grassroots economic development in rural South Africa (3) were the first manifestation of post-WWII industrial (used loosely) development in South Africa (4) they have become an iconic brand. So there is a raison d'etre for keeping them in the encyclopedia, and they meet the notability threshold of WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 15:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Every single source is either a negligible mention that doesn't even repeat "ouma" more than once, a primary source, or a press release. The only one that might not be a puff piece is mweb. Wikipedia doesn't care about what a company does, what it makes, or where it's made -- only that there exists significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. I agree with Cartney23 that it may deserve mention at rusk but in no way passes WP:CORPDEPTH. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Just in case there's doubt about the allafrica reference being a press release because it's behind a paywall, the full text is available: here. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The argument that brands should not have pages is invalid. Then delete all articles relating to "Samsung", "Toyota" and any other brand. The information is factual with references. Just because other manufacturers of rusks don't have their own pages is no valid reason why Ouma can't have a page. It is not proposing that Ouma is a better brand of rusks than any other rusk. I don't see how this can be interpreted as an advertisement.Goliatus (talk) 10:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC) — Goliatus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- you're arguing against a straw man. Please take a look at wikipedia standards for notability (which is a technical term indifferent to how good the product is or how factual the information is. It's available here: WP:N--— Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:13, 8 July 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.