Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orgain

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 delete. ✗plicit 13:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orgain

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 09:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 12:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This all looks like routine coverage of financials, deals, workspace leasing, acquisitions, bare mentions, and comparison reviews. I literally am not sure I see a single instance of significant coverage. valereee (talk) 18:12, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The company was just acquired by Nestle. I added some more coverage of the transaction, and added this article to the Nestle template. Three best sources: Bloomberg, Orange County Business Journal, LA Weekly. I know sourcing is key to notability, but you can also Google them and see how ubiquitous they are. That speaks to the "impact on society" aspect of notability that is starting to come up in these discussions. This is a widely available commercial product, with widespread name recognition. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TT, being acquired doesn't make a company notable. Being "ubiquitous" on Google does not make a company notable. Being widely available does not make a company notable. Widespread name recognition does not make a company notable. Even surviving an AfD does not make a company notable, as experienced editors who work regularly at AfD regularly see non-notable companies surviving AfD due to the vagaries of WP. valereee (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, I can't get to OCBJ, but the title ("orgain's clean proteins drives sales") doesn't look independent. The Bloomberg seems to be routine coverage of acquisition, and the LA Weekly definitely looks to be sponsored content. There's literally a giant ad for Orgain in the middle of the "article", which is about the health history of the founder and how protein shakes helped him. C'mon. These three best sources do not look like proving notability. valereee (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: Here are two snippets from the OCBJ: The company started working with Costco about six years ago. It’s now the best-selling protein powder at Costco and the number one selling plant powder in the U.S. Also, Thus in 2009, he started Orgain Inc., a fast-growing Irvine-based company where sales are exploding to “well over” $300 million this year, up 50% from 2018. Its products are now in 30,000 stores, including Costco. 30,000 stores and $300M in sales seems notable enough. This was from December 2019, and before Nestle bought them, so I'm sure they're bigger now. I drink it myself, but I doubt it'll appear in a future edition of Vegetable Kingdom. ;-) You can see one of my jars on my fancy dining room table in the article. TechnoTalk (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can access the OCBJ article linked above, and it is not independent per WP:ORGIND, e.g. the content must not be produced by interested parties, and this source is based around "Abraham said", "Abraham said", "Butterfly’s team said", "the company said", "he told the Business Journal", "Abraham said", "he said", "According to the company", "Its website", "he said". Example quote: "“Orange County represents health and wellness so it’s a great area for leading nutritional and nutraceutical companies to set up and attract great talent,” Abraham said." Per WP:ORGIND, Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject, and this source even adds quotes to the sales figures, e.g. "sales are exploding to “well over” $300 million this year". This source has a general appearance of an overview, but statements such as, "According to the company, it is the No. 1 “ready to drink” brand shake by sales" indicate that fact checking is not clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject, and this is instead promotional content by a publication that offers "an up-tempo, breezy style that reveals the drama, excitement and fun in business." We need sources to independently support encyclopedic notability, and corporations can be a particularly challenging topic area because of the amount of promotional content that is generated by these companies. Beccaynr (talk) 03:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen - per WP:NCORP. In my online search, I found a press release Butterfly Announces Agreement to Sell Majority Stake in Orgain to Nestlé Health Science (BusinessWire/Yahoo, Feb. 2, 2022), which is very similar to a source in the article: Butterfly Equity Sells Majority Stake in Orgain to Nestle Health Science (LA Business Journal, Feb. 14, 2022). There is also this press release: Butterfly Reaches Agreement to Acquire a Majority Stake in Clean Nutrition Brand Orgain (BusinessWire, Nov. 8, 2019), which appears in lightly edited form in the article as Butterfly acquires a majority stake in nutrition brand Orgain, cited with an incorrect date, (actually Dec. 2, 2019, in the non-RS NUTRAingredients-usa.com). These sources do not support NCORP notability because they clearly fail WP:ORGIND. Most of what I can find online are press releases, and while I can only see a preview of the 2021 Bloomberg article about possible funding, Butterfly Equity Explores Options for Protein Powder Maker Orgain, this does not bode well for WP:CORPDEPTH: "Food-focused buyout firm Butterfly Equity is exploring options for its protein powder maker Orgain, according to people with knowledge of the matter. The Los Angeles-based private equity firm is working with Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Bank of America Corp. on a potential sale or an initial public offering, the people said, asking not to be identified because the information is private." Non-notable lists of best shakes, protein powders, bars etc cited in the article are examples of trivial coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH, and A collection of multiple trivial sources do not become significant. The Adweek source is a brief announcement of an ad campaign. The Irvine Weekly source is heavily dependent on promotional quotes from the company founder. I have not found better sources in an online search. Beccaynr (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NCORP. I usually try to go into some detail as to why any sources, if present, do not contribute towards the notability of the subject, but Beccaynr did a great job of just that so I can't really add anything beyond that. The sources just don't show notability for the subject. - Aoidh (talk) 02:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NCORP, and Beccaynr lays it out perfectly above. Jacona (talk) 13:34, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar I think it bears repeating one last time. This is a company with >$300 million in sales that is the market leader in its category, and was acquired by Nestle. That's not disputed, and can't be rejected with the "it's an interview" or "it's based on a press release" arguments. If this needs better refs, flag it for refimprove and I'll do a Google alert to identify additional coverage once Nestle starts expanding the brand and more stories come out. Merging this to Nestle and redirecting doesn't make sense because it would unbalance the Nestle article. TechnoTalk (talk) 18:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:ORGSIG, No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is [...] If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists. The lack of independent coverage (e.g. "it's an interview" or "it's based on a press release") is a sufficient basis to support deletion per the WP:NCORP guideline. Beccaynr (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TechnoTalk, none of that makes a company notable. Not $300M in revenues, not being the market leader, not being acquired by a multinational. I do not know how to explain this to you any more clearly: Notability is based on significant coverage in independent reliable sources. You seem to believe it is or should be based on some measure of "importance". It. Is. Not. I do not know how to explain this to you any more clearly. valereee (talk) 23:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources do not meet NCORP's notability criteria and all I can find are regurgitated press releases and announcements, the usual PR from just about any company with a functioning marketing dept. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:19, 11 July 2022 (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.