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 merge to The Warrell Corporation. J04n(talk page) 23:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pennsylvania Dutch Candies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Contested prod. This candy company fails WP:CORP. It is not subject to non-trivial secondary coverage from reliable sources, and there is no evidence of notability. Another editor agreed, and the article was deleted, only to be contested a few hours later. — ξ^xplicit 00:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - a look at Google News shows a few articles, but many are behind a paywall at the York Dispatch. Bearian (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:CORPDEPTH (having done Google and News searches--the York Dispatch ones do not seem in-depth, and it's basically local news). Logical Cowboy (talk) 01:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to The Warrell Corp. and expand to cover the company's brands. The parent company appears to be quite notable, the subcompany is not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article is borderline A7 territory: There's nothing in the article that makes any assertion of importance at all. --Jayron32 00:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge / Move to The Warrell Corp. as suggested above. Sources like this, this and this suggest WP:CORPDEPTH could be met for the parent company, even if individual sub-brands or products remain non-notable. Stalwart111 01:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your comments. Sources 2 and 3 are press releases. Not sure what to make of 1. Never heard of US Business Review. A "corporate profile" is not necessarily independent news coverage. Logical Cowboy (talk) 17:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about that analysis of 2 and 3 - they look just to be articles from confectionary industry magazines. They aren't the New York Times, sure, but I don't think they are "press releases" - at least I can't see where it says as much. No idea what the US Business Review is. To be honest, I just picked three random articles from the first page of Google results as a comparison to the lack of results for the subject sub-group. Article 1 (regardless of origin) is at HighBeam and there's a list of "related articles" from a whole bunch of sources listed underneath, all about Warrell Corp. Stalwart111 21:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, well 2 is mostly PR quotes from the company involved. 3 is based on a local newspaper story, likely sourced from a press release. Neither is independent in-depth coverage required by WP:CORPDEPTH. I doubt 1 is independent of subject. Logical Cowboy (talk) 02:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, most industry magazines have that sort of tone - they tend not to run negative (or even neutral stuff) about their own industry. And a lot of local press is based on press releases; from companies, organisations, politicians, etc. There's not a lot of hard-hitting editorial there. But that doesn't make them automatically non-RS. Anyway, there's enough there (with the rest of the list of related articles included) for me to consider the parent company notable. It doesn't need to be those three sources. And others are free to disagree of course. Stalwart111 02:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but I didn't say the sources fail WP:RS. WP:CORPDEPTH is a different standard. Logical Cowboy (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, understand that - I referred to it above. I'm not aware of any instance of industry-specific publications being rejected as being not independent enough, so for me the other natural question is about whether it meets WP:RS (linked in the first line of WP:CORP on that basis). Whether specific publications offer a depth of information, collectively, to establish CORPDEPTH would probably need a HighBeam account to put beyond doubt - someone who can properly assess those additional 10 or so sources. Like I said, it's enough for me, but you are free to disagree of course. Stalwart111 22:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. "Independent" coverage is part of WP:CORPDEPTH. I don't think it's a good idea to ignore this criterion--it's crucial. Many industry publications just reprint warmed-over press releases, or publish "advertorials." The issue of independence, and whether press releases (or press release-like material) count towards notability, comes up repeatedly at AfD. Logical Cowboy (talk) 06:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly does. Like I said, I'm not aware of any instance of industry-specific publications being rejected as being not independent enough, simply on the basis that they focus on one industry. And I'm not aware of any documented concern (like a guideline or user essay) calling industry-specific publications into question generally on that basis. But I would be interested to read one. Anyway, we're discussing the potential notability of an article that doesn't exist. Ha ha. Stalwart111 08:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who voted to create The Warrell Corp.. You can change your vote. The reason I said that sources 2 and 3 are not independent and in-depth is because I read them and they are mostly PR quotes. I did not raise the issue that they are industry publications--you raised that. Sources 2 and 3 do not contribute to notability under WP:CORPDEPTH because they are "brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business" and mostly "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources." Again, it is not too late for you to change your vote. Logical Cowboy (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I disagree with that assessment of them because they are industry publications and because that is simply the nature of industry publications. And I did raise it - because you suggested they were "press releases" which is clearly not the case. Those sorts of publications report on industry news and generally include quotes from the companies in question. But I've never seen an argument made that such publications cannot be counted toward CORPDEPTH on that basis. In fact, vendingmarketwatch.com has been used as a source for about a dozen articles here, and candyindustry.com has also been used (though not as extensively) in other confectionary-industry articles. And even if we dismiss 2 and 3 we can still fall back on the list of potential sources attached to number 1 which includes this article that suggests they won a business award and this one from another industry publication that looks to give some history of the company. I remain of the opinion that a case could be made that The Warrell Corp. is notable and that creating it is a better option than keeping the subject article. Stalwart111 21:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, you don't think that WP:CORPDEPTH should be applied to "industry publications?" Even though WP:CORPDEPTH explicitly rules out brief announcements of mergers, as well as quotations from the company's PR, to establish notability, you would ignore the explicit content of WP:CORPDEPTH because it is an industry publication? I think that's just wrong. Also, I don't think that winning the Central Pennsylvania Business of the Year award (2004) does much to establish notability. Logical Cowboy (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit of a strawman argument. You suggested they shouldn't count towards WP:CORPDEPTH because of their content, prefaced on the suggestion that the content of "many" such publications lacked independence. You suggested the content of both was of the sort specifically highlighted at WP:CORPDEPTH - I disagree. I don't believe those are the sorts of sources that WP:CORPDEPTH was designed to exclude and I've not seen a consensus anywhere to suggest otherwise. I believe it was designed to exclude press releases and regulatory-style company announcements, but not genuine industry-specific editorial about company acquisitions that include quotes from company representatives. Stalwart111 01:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. I did not "preface" my vote, or other comments, on general characteristics of industry publications. I did not even mention industry publications until my fifth or sixth edit to this page, after you brought up the issue first. Even then, I did not say that industry publications in general should be excluded. I was just responding to your comment. I'd be happy to see thousands of citations to industry publications, provided that WP:CORPDEPTH is applied. WP:CORPDEPTH is the consensus of the community. It says that brief announcements of mergers, as well as quotations from the company's PR, do not establish notability. It does not say "please ignore these rules for industry publications." The sources 2 and 3 you provided were brief announcements of mergers, mainly based on company quotes. Please post a link to where it says in WP:CORPDEPTH that the rules do not apply to industry publications. If you can't do that, your point has no basis. Logical Cowboy (talk) 01:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Many industry publications just reprint warmed-over press releases, or publish advertorials." I took that to mean that, in your opinion, many industry publications just reprint warmed-over press releases. I disagree with that general characterisation and I continue to disagree with your assessment of the sources in question against WP:CORPDEPTH. Even if I didn't, there's a list of others to pick from on HighBeam. Even if there wasn't, we'd still be talking about an article that exists only in theory. You are free to believe that merging content into a new article isn't a good idea. You remain entitled to your opinion that my reading of potential sources is wrong. You are clearly not going to convince me, nor I you, but attributing to me an argument that I have never made and then demanding I make it with evidence is a pointless exercise: straw man. I'd say I've had enough of flogging a dead horse, if it weren't for the fact that this horse hasn't even been born yet. Stalwart111 03:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stalwart, do you think WP:CORPDEPTH applies to industry publications? Yes or no? Logical Cowboy (talk) 04:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm. Seriously. Stalwart111 05:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stalwart, this has been a WP:CIVIL and even interesting discussion about policy, but you're starting to stray away from that. You said I attributed an argument to you that you never made. Fair enough. So I asked what your views actually are. Do you think WP:CORPDEPTH applies to industry publications? Yes or no? Cheers. Logical Cowboy (talk) 05:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It might be better to discuss this at WP:RSN where it will get the necessary attention. But I'll say here what I would say there. that while it is perfectly true that "Many industry publications just reprint warmed-over press releases, or publish advertorials," most are a mixture of content based on PR, and content that is editorially responsible. The good content is a RS for N; the other content is not, although it is an indication that at least the editors thought this particular press release was worth reprinting--they do after all depend upon the perception of the trade that the material they include is significant enough and accurate enough to be of interest. More generally, there is no individual publication of any sort, let alone any class of publications, that is an unquestionably reliable source in all circumstances, and very few newspapers or magazines that are totally free from being influenced by PR. The individual article needs to be examined, to see whether it shows some degree of independent assessment. I have not yet done that in this case, but am about to. DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG, I agree with every word you've said. My own evaluations were about the individual articles themselves after I had read them. Cheers. Logical Cowboy (talk) 03:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• weak Keep and move as suggested. I agree with you, LC, that as far as I can see none of the individual articles look impressive. But looking at the total article list at [1] it seems obvious that the people in that industry think the company important enough to be worth covering. Another way of putting it, is that except for famous firms, this is the best we can expect, and if we wish to include manufacturing firms in unexciting consumer industries that are just notable, we need to accept sources like this. If this were a field that is exceptionally well covered by the general press, like athletics or politics, it would be another matter. Sources in different fields are different. I think that to be rational rather than mechanistic, an analysis on the basis of 2RS=N needs to take account of what can be expected in the subject area. I know some other people do not agree, and judge everything by the standards of the fields that in the past have traditionally been important to paper encyclopedias. DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Nah, if you mean the articles listed under "Related newspaper, magazine, and journal articles," these are mostly boring press releases turned into short news articles. One is about the new peanut brittle machine. Another is about adding 38 full-time staff. Two are about acquiring a brand of caramel. Then there are two about internal promotions, no doubt sourced from press releases. And there is also the prestigious Central Pennsylvania Business of the Year (2004). These are explicitly excluded by WP:CORPDEPTH, viz, "routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel, brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business, simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued." These are the rules that I think we should be following. Logical Cowboy (talk) 05:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge this stub to Camp Hill, Pennsylvania (since the Warrell Corporation page has been deleted). Miniapolis 15:39, 17 February 2013 (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.