Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wockenfuss Candies

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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:59, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wockenfuss Candies

[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)

I found no significant coverage per WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 23:13, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:25, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:25, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article lacks proper sourcing that establishes notability.TH1980 (talk) 03:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. It has references from reliable sources such as the Baltimore Sun, local TV station, and Maryland Daily Record. It is a historically relevant article as the company was founded in 1915 and was founded by immigrants. Fourth generation businesses in states are important to people and generally earn press which this company did. In the overview section, more footnotes would be helpful. If the article is kept, I think an caramel apple pic should be added.Knox490 (talk) 03:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Besides WMAR-TV [1], The Baltimore Sun [2] and Daily Record (Maryland) [3], there is also coverage on CBS News [4] (a paragraph that also verifies the location, and it could be used to expand their candies section), Cecil Whig [5], Baltimore (magazine) [6], Baltimore Business Journal [7] and in-depth coverage in a i95 Business magazine which should be reliable [8]. Passes WP:NCORP and seems like a failure of WP:BEFORE. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Why mention WP:BEFORE when I clearly said that I couldn't find significant coverage? That means that I obviously searched beforehand. I do believe that most of the references found so far don't show notability as being run of the mill and local, but that doesn't matter because this article will be kept. SL93 (talk) 16:35, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pinging TH1980 to see this as well. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Weakish, but still. The nom is correct that most of the coverage is local. However, this coverage comes from multiple sources and is specific and detailed. For a big city with thosands of businesses, that kind of coverage is impressive. There is a reasonable case here for passing WP:GNG. Nsk92 (talk) 20:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the sources found now means that this business meets WP:ORG. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: initially closed as keep, relisting per request
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rollidan (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Business is historically significant, as well as reasonable coverage in multiple sources. Earnsthearthrob (talk) 20:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the sources listed are local and do not confer notability. While the Baltimore Sun is a major paper, it is still local when talking about things in Baltimore. If there were an article in the Podunk Podunkly (from Podunk Backwaterstan) about this business, then, despite being a local paper, it would indicate greater coverage. Rockphed (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability.A reminder that coverage must contain Independent Content (as defined in WP:ORGIND) as well as in-depth coverage. One without the other means the reference fails the criteria. An analysis of the references in the article illustrates the reasons for failing the criteria as follows:

The WMAR reference is a local news "Made in Maryland" segment which relies entirely on filming at the company and interviewing the owner. This is classic churnalism. Fails WP:ORGIND.
This Baltimore Sun reference is based entirely on an interview with the owner and there is no information in this article that is clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated with the company and has no Independent Content (as per ORGIND). This is churnalism and fails WP:ORGIND
The CBS Baltimore reference is a mention-in-passing - the fact that this company was the only company from the local area to attend the the 11th annual Retail Confectioners International Chocolate Boot Camp. There is no information provided about the company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
Thie Hoodline reference entitled "3 of the best candy stores in Baltimore] contains a photo of some chocolates and the following information about the company: "a candy store and chocolatier and shop in Woodring, is another much-loved go-to, with 4.5 stars out of 10 Yelp reviews. Head over to 6831 Harford Road to see for yourself". Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
THie The Daily Record reference is yet more churnalism. It relies entirely on an interview with the owner. Fails WP:ORGIND for the same reasons as the Baltimore Sun reference above.
The Baltimore Sun reference is an article announcing the death of Mr. Wockenfuss and relies entirely on information provided by his son, Paul, and a granddaughter, Chris. Fails WP:ORGIND.

Of the references mentioned above, they fail for similar reasons as follows:

This CBS local reference is a list of places to purchase "Easter goodies" for Easter, mentions Wockenfuss but contains no in-depth information on the company and fails WP:CORPDEPTH
Leaving aside the fact that this publication is ultra-local with a reported circulation of 17,500, this Cecil Daily reference is based on a company announcement and contains no Independent Content. (For example, most of the phrases such as the last paragraph can be found in other articles in other publications). Article fails WP:ORGIND.
This Baltimore Magazine reference is again, churnalism and is based on the journalist visiting the company facility, relies exclusively on quotations from company officials/family members and contains no Independent Content. Article fails WP:ORGIND.
This BizJournals reference discusses the company's decision to launch their website but it is based entirely on an interview with the company's district manager, Janice Motter, and Rialto, the company that designed the website. It is churnalism and contains no Independent Content, failing WP:ORGIND.
This i95 Business reference is the same churnalism we've seen in many of the other articles above. The article relies exclusively on information provided by the Wockenfuss family or the company and has no Independent Content (as defined in ORGIND) and fails WP:ORGIND.

I have also searched Google Books for references but came up blank. This company is successful locally, no doubt, but fails the criteria for notability as per GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:52, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: At the moment I am inclined to call this a delete based on the examination of the sources being used to establish WP:N. Out of an abundance of caution I am going to relist this for another week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment More coverage; The Daily Record, Patch.com, The Morning Call (mention). Harley.M.X (talk) 16:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This makes me sad because I really want to keep articles about 100 year old companies. But, despite quite a bit of searching, I can't find any coverage of the company outside of Maryland, which fails WP:NCORP, specifically WP:AUD. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:59, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's true that this hasn't been covered outside of Maryland, but WP:AUD does actually suggest that "regional" coverage can be acceptable, and I think that is satisfied with the Baltimore Sun and Maryland TV refs. Maryland is a state of six million people, which would put it at a respectable 111th out of 185 if it were a country in its own right, more populous than the likes of Denmark, Finland and New Zealand. — Amakuru (talk) 09:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Eastmain. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:10, 20 September 2019 (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.

Wockenfuss Candies

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.