Template:Did you know nominations/Glacier Media

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Glacier Media

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that Glacier Media, which owns the daily newspaper in Victoria, British Columbia, was originally a bottled water company?

Created/expanded by Toll Booth Willie (talk). Self nom at 04:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• No requirement for QPQ. Article is new enough and long enough. Article reads as neutral enough to me. No presence of weasel words and no overemphasis on products and company employees are why. No images so no copyright issues to check on those. Article is supported by inline citations. Plagiarism check: here, here, here, here give me no cause for concern. Hook is properly formatted.
• Article relies heavily on company sources.
• Hook is supported by company Annual Information Form, with the fact being supported on page 2. Article relies heavily on company sources like this. Not sure if this is a big problem, and bothers me a little but not familiar with policies for notability inside business but seems likely it would easily pass WP:GNG. --LauraHale (talk) 04:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth ... here's an "independent" cite (NYT) for the hook fact: [1]. I used the company's Annual Report as my citation in the article itself because all the independent cites I could find simply said "former bottled water company", whereas the self-published source went into great detail with a founding date, former names, date they exited that industry, etc. User:Toll Booth Willie 17:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

If no one has any concerns with over reliance on company sources for the article, it is good to go. --LauraHale (talk) 04:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)