Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bridgewater Chocolate

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 delete. Tone 06:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgewater Chocolate

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Bridgewater Chocolate (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)

Fails

WP:BEFORE search returns plenty coverage in keeping with a business dependent on PR to expand their market, for example announcing their opening of new locations. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- First of all, the sources already in the article are sufficient to meet GNG. Nom cannot redefine editorial content in local newspapers such as the Register Citizen or the News Times as "advertorial." Furthermore, all news articles are "based on interviews," so that can't possibly count against the coverage. Not only that, but the fact that these newspapers chose to interview people associated with the company speaks to its notability rather than against it. And finally consider that this company is discussed in the New York Times, for goodness sake, which is the sine qua non of notability. Just see The Time Honored Exaltation of Chocolate not to mention plenty of other regional coverage, e.g. this article from the Hartford Courant. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 15:04, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Both the NYT and Courant.com articles only have two paragraphs each that mention Bridgewater Chocolate, failing the significant coverage test, and paragraphs that are quotes from the company aren't independent coverage. Feature sections in publications often charge for inclusion - that's one of the ways that publications make money. Is this the case here? That's up to us to judge, and I believe it is. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Two paragraphs in the NYT is more than most of the subjects of our articles have. That in itself is sufficient to meet the GNG. And paragraphs that are quotes from the company perfectly well are independent coverage for the sake of establishing notability. The fact that the NYT chooses to quote some company proves that the company is notable per the editorial judgment of the NYT. And now you're arguing that the NYT is pay to play. Sheesh! 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Just because sources are from local newspapers, that doesn't make them "advertorial". There are also many large publications that wrote articles about this company, such as the NYTimes and Hartford Courant. This is also a franchised company with an international presence, so there are a variety of sources covering this company in publications written in other languages, such as Arabic.--
    AfD. [reply
    ]
If there are other good sources, feel free to add them to the article. However, remember that those sources need to provide substantial coverage, and be truly independent. The two sources you mention fail on both counts. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that the NYTimes and Courant articles alone do not make this subject notable, but combined with the plethora of sources from local publications the subject is.--AirportExpert (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)AirportExpert[reply]
@
WP:NCORP
:
Analysis of references
Source Significant? Independent? Reliable? Secondary? Pass/Fail Notes
Sales Green tickY Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN Promo piece, entirely sourced from the founder/owner or company PR
Bridgewater Chocolate Connecticut Presence Green tickY Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN Announcement of a new store; entirely sourced from the founder/owner or company PR
NBR CNBC review Green tickY ? Green tickY Green tickY ? A substantial piece, and a 3m40s CNBC television feature
About Bridgewater Chocolate Green tickY Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN A company's own website is not an independent source
Bridgewater Kuwait Red XN Red XN Red XN Red XN Red XN Press release on the Franchise Arabia site
Middle East locations Green tickY Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN Franchise operator - not independent
The Time-Honored Exaltation of Chocolate NYTimes Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN Two paragraphs mentioning the company, the second company being a quote from the founder/owner
Bridgewater Chocolate gets ready for sweet holiday CTPost Green tickY Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN Substantial promo piece, entirely sourced from the founder/owner or company PR
Total qualifying sources 0-1 There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements
When assessed properly in this way the outcome is clear. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Apparent attempt to introduce a press release on a trivial company into WP. It's not surprising the sources are no better. DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Markvs88:
  • The 2008 NYT article only mentions Bridgewater Chocolate to give its street address, web address, telephone number and cost per pound of chocolates. That's not substantial coverage. Your assertion that "Bridgewater chocolate is notable as it is hand-dipped" is not in keeping with
    WP:N
    , if that's what you meant by 'notable'. There are no doubt thousands of chocolatiers worldwide that hand-dip chocolate, but that doesn't make them notable as in worthy of an encyclopedia article about each.
  • The tradearabia.com reference is just a press release announcing the opening of the mall outlet in Qatar. It doesn't say anything else about the company, so is not substantial coverage, nor is it independent.
  • The Gulf Times reference is also just a corporate announcement of the opening of the mall outlet. You can see clearly - it says "according to a statement". That's a giveaway that the piece is based on a press release. That makes it non-independent. The coverage is only to say "Foodies were delighted with the opening of the delectable Bridgewater Chocolate", so that's not substantial coverage.
  • The 2015 Boston Globe piece by two 'correspondents' appears to be based on the State of Connecticut trying to promote its 'Connecticut Chocolate Trail', a road trip between 12 chocolate makers. It looks to me like the State has paid journalists to write a promo piece. I don't think it is independent. The first paragraph references some famous people who may or may not have ordered chocolate there - the source is presumably the company. Listing famous patrons doesn't help show notability - see
    WP:NOTINHERITED
    . The second paragraph just describes some of the products, and gives the contact details, and again the price per pound.
So, none of these help meet the
WikiBreak - welcome back. One of the things that's changed in that time is that about nine months ago, the notability guidelines for companies were substantially rewritten. Many articles that would have been accepted before your break would no longer make the cut. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you, Curb Safe Charmer, and I appreciate your taking the time to consider these sources. However, I do have a couple of issues to point out with this synopsis. Note that I have read the new
wp:ncorp
guidelines.
Ah, but what percentage of chocolate world-wide is hand-dipped? A very small segment, and a small number of manufacturers in Connecticut do so as listed in the article. To put it another way, I like beer. Sam Adams brewed by
craft brewer
in the industry... and they have less than 1% of the total market. The point is relevant for Boston Beer, why not for Bridgewater Chocolates?
Yes, it is true that neither TradeArabia nor Gulf times coverage is substantial, but it *does* prove the point that the company is international, and has independent coverage to prove it. And that's all it needs to do to support the text. We don't need a 50 page dossier source just to support where a market is. I agree that significant sources are a great thing, but it's above and beyond for what this point is. I will try to further update the article, as I hope others will to see if this can be improved.
Really, that was your take on it? I thought it was abundantly clear that the paper's editor needed a human-interest piece and spent the least amount of resources to get one... while having the junior staffer get his wife chocolates for Valentine's Day. Or at least that's how it looks to me. ;-)
The first paragraph references some famous people who *have* ordered from there. As in: this is a fact published in a newspaper of record. There was no correction issued. I also note that per
New York Times
.
The whole of the Markets section speaks to the fact that the business isn't just two huts in the backwaters of CT. This is allowed in other business articles, so why not here? "Just"? Isn't that the type of coverage that one would have of this sort of business... and that you asked for?

Best, Markvs88 (talk) 13:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - @Curb Safe Charmer: I have to disagree with your analysis that articles like the one from the CTPost are not independent or secondary. These are legitimate news sources, and report in a way so their readers can be familiarized with local businesses, but are not inherently biased towards them--AirportExpert (talk) 16:12, 7 November 2018 (UTC)AirportExpert.[reply]
@
WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Commment -- According to Curb Safe Charmer If there are other good sources, feel free to add them to the article. However, remember that those sources need to provide substantial coverage, and be truly independent. I just want to point out that this is a confused and false statement. We need sources to provide substantial coverage for the purpose of determining notability, likewise to be independent (although not truly independent, which is a higher bar that Curb Safe Charmer just made up). We do not need either of those qualities to source facts in an article. It's perfectly fine to source facts in articles to sources which do not provide substantial coverage or are not independent. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:ORGIND explains the difference between functional independence and intellectual independence. I meant the latter, which is indeed a higher bar, but not made up by me. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:04, 14 November 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bridgewater_Chocolate&oldid=870077162"