I noticed today that the Wikipedia article for Adagio was deleted last week. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adagio_Teas
Back on the 4th, I noticed that it was marked for Speedy Deletion (something that articles get when they are too far off Wikipedia standards).
Some of the Wikipedia articles about tea companies can be pretty good, giving a good run down on them. I do remember that after reading the article that I really didn't learn anything about Adagio. There wasn't much about the principals behind (other than it was founded by two brothers who were inspired by mom - I assume the original crew is still in charge).
Sometimes, I like to know more about the companies I buy from. That kind of thing usually comes from press releases and other news information. There doesn't seem to be a lot of information about Adagio, its history, and its ups and downs from over the years. This is a good company, and learning about it I think would be interesting.
If anyone wants to take a stab at resurrecting the Adagio Wikipedia page, have at it. This is a company that surely has an interesting story to tell.
Re: Adagio Teas at Wikipedia
I'm surprised at this, but Adagio Teas seems to be marginal with respect to the notability criteria on Wikipedia, which is probably why the article was deleted rather than improved. To be notable, a topic needs to receive significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, as defined by Wikipedia's consensus guidelines and policies.
I'm a pretty experience Wikipedia editor and a brief glance through google news archive turns up a lot of sources, but they mostly do not meet Wikipedia's standards: some of them are just regurgitated press releases, which are not acceptable because they're effectively self-published by the company. Similarly, one of the most prominent articles is actually an opinion piece.
I personally would lean on the side of Adagio being notable, however, I recognize that the case for it is weak and shaky. It may be prudent to wait before re-creating the page, or, what might be better, to dig hard for the most detailed coverage in reliable news sources, and collect those sources and use them to create a well-referenced stub that clearly asserts the notability of the topic.
I'm a pretty experience Wikipedia editor and a brief glance through google news archive turns up a lot of sources, but they mostly do not meet Wikipedia's standards: some of them are just regurgitated press releases, which are not acceptable because they're effectively self-published by the company. Similarly, one of the most prominent articles is actually an opinion piece.
I personally would lean on the side of Adagio being notable, however, I recognize that the case for it is weak and shaky. It may be prudent to wait before re-creating the page, or, what might be better, to dig hard for the most detailed coverage in reliable news sources, and collect those sources and use them to create a well-referenced stub that clearly asserts the notability of the topic.