Skinny Food Co: CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Looks notable to me.   Reliable sources 1 , 2 , already listed in the article.   Don't delete: fix. — S Marshall T / C 23:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ S Marshall neither is significant coverage and whether independent or not, they both read as promo pieces to me.  ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk ) 23:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I collegially join issue with you.  :) The Sunday Times is a British Newspaper of Record and Wikipedians evaluate it as reliable.  The relevant discussions and consensuses are linked from WP:THETIMES .  If you can read that link and say it's not SIGCOV then I don't really know how to react to that. — S Marshall T / C 00:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Both would be considered reliable I believe, but The Times reference would not be considered WP:CORPDEPTH .  The Lancashire Telegraph is borderline WP:CORPDEPTH as it does go beyond a routine announcement by providing background on the company.  Are there any others as even if these both were found sufficient, not sure they would be enough for notability.  -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 20:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Daily Mirror is also a British national newspaper, much less reliable than The Times (cf WP:DAILYMIRROR ) and I would be suspicious of anything controversial that it said, but I would think it's reliable for the uncontroversial claims in this article , which is again already listed as a source.   The article seems to be about the founders, but it's got quite a bit of depth about the business. — S Marshall T / C 22:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for reviewing and notifying of the deletion proposal.  I tried to only use secondary sources that meet the standards for credibility.  Although I do agree with you that some feel promotional, as far as I could tell none were advertorials, product placements etc, and were more just positive skewed coverage.  I did try and balance the article and remove any overall bias in the article by proactively seeking out critical sources also.  Westenders ( talk ) 12:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – top sources are used.  I concur with S Marshall.  Also, the article isn’t very WP:PROMO imo.  TLA (talk) 06:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .   The sourcing is adequate for a corporate article and promotionalism is not so thorough as to necessitate a complete rewrite.   It just needs some minor editing.  Eluchil404 ( talk ) 02:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  No valid reason given for deletion.  Windolson ( talk ) 23:51, 15 January 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep