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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Superbrands[edit]

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

While Superbrands conducts some surveys whose results are widely reported, I cannot find significant coverage of Superbrands itself that would indicate it meets Wikipedia's standards of notability, particularly in light of WP:CORPDEPTH. The current article is extremely spammy and largely based on primary sources including themelves and press releases by those they called "superbrands". Huon (talk) 09:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I took a look at the article and I don't think the article is really salvageable. I agree that all sources outside of the article are not sufficient for WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Chrisw80 (talk) 09:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 09:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 09:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep plenty of coverage to satisfy GNG. Here's one possible Google search of News sources - there are many such options: 197 Ghits --Dweller (talk) 13:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

most of those hits do not cover superbrands in depth. LibStar (talk) 09:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dweller, I would appreciate it if you could point out which of those 197 Google News hits discuss Superbrands itself in some detail. Huon (talk) 10:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Draft and userfy as a compromise so delete and restart to mainspace when better as the listed sources are something but this article is not yet fully set. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This book search probably provides a better starting point for research into notability, if anyone is prepared to do that rather than make a snap judgement by guesswork, than any of the searches above. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, while Superbrands may be notable, Superbrands Council which links from the article is an unsourced BLP vio. I will tag that for a speedy. Murry1975 (talk) 11:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG. most of the coverage is quoting a spokesperson for Superbrands rather than about superbrands as the subject of the coverage. LibStar (talk) 04:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That comment misrepresents the book sources found by my search above, with only a handful of the 46 results quoting a spokesman for Superbrands. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks like this passes WP:GNG to me. There are numerous sources that cover the organization in-depth and discuss the impact of major notable corporations and organizations that are recognized by the article subject ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]). Also mentioned in many books ([11], [12], [13], [14]) that appear to be used in educational settings or give advice on building positive public relations. The recognition given by the article subject has significant coverage and looks to have cultural and corporate impact. Sure, I didn't find a large amount of sources that only cover the company in-depth, but I found enough evidence that, put together, looks to pass WP:GNG. The article may not be extensive or huge, but I believe that it passes and is notable enough for an article. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:ORGDEPTH per a review of sources available online. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 19 February 2016 (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.