Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Tyrol quality mark

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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

South Tyrol quality mark

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

NN trademark advert for regional goods. Promotional in tone with little to no secondary sources not immediately associated with the products being promoted. Previously CSD under slightly different title for copyvio. Gaff (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep South Tyrol/Alto Adige is well known fot the quality of its foods, an article regading is quality mark is notable.User:Lucifero4

comment not to press the point... But whether or not the cuisine from this region is tasty is outside the scope of this review. The question is if there are reliable secondary sources to confirm notability of the trademark. Gaff (talk) 23:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Pax 08:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't think you're looking at it quite correctly. This appears to be better characterized as a
WP:GOOGLETESTing suggested to me that there were plenty of secondary sources. Perhaps the better remedy is to tag the page for more citations. Fiachra10003 (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request from nominator please close as keep or no consensus, as this has been up for long enough. Gaff (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2015 (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.