Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arnott's Biscuits Holdings
From 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Arnott's Biscuits Holdings[edit]
A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [1]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 16:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep From the article Arnott's is also Australia's second largest supplier of snack food. and on their website, they employ over 4,000 people in Australia alone. How on earth this got speedied, I don't know. FrozenPurpleCube 16:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If we kept articles based purely upon the article content and what the subject's own web site says, we'd be keeping all sorts of rubbish. If this company is as notable as you think, it should be easy to make a proper argument, citing sources, demonstrating that the WP:CORP criteria are satisfied. Uncle G 18:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Gee, I'm sorry, but I don't have a copy of an Australian Business Almanac (or Newspaper, or whatever) on hand, and in lieu of evidence to the contrary, I'm going to assume that a company that is large enough to have over 4000 employees is not going to outright lie on their website, that as a subsidiary of a major US company (Campbells), they are going to be truthful, and that ultimately, the contents of article can be verified. If they can't, then I request you identify what can't be, so it can be specifically dealt with. More importantly though, my real problem was that they should NEVER have been speedied. That was such a bad result that it brings into question the whole Speedy Deletion process. FrozenPurpleCube 19:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a circular argument. You know that it has 4,000 employees because you read it on the web site (as you stated above). You trust that the web site is telling the truth because the company has 4,000 employees. Citing sources for notable companies to demonstrate that they satisfy WP:CORP isn't hard, but if you don't do it the first time that an article comes up at AFD, the article most likely will be challenged again, months or years from now. It also gives you a proper foundation for assertions about the size and significance of the company, because you can point to source material to back up what you claim. Uncle G 20:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm just pointing out that I don't have a directory of Australian businesses available on hand. I'm sorry, but that's not the sort of thing I have at home. Maybe some Aussie users do, I don't know. However, the fact that they do claim such a large number of employees makes them notable, and this is either something outright provable or disprovable. If you've got some source that claims they don't exist, or any kind of evidence of their being deceptive, tell me.. But to act like you are now? It creates the impression to me that you're overzealous, not that you're really concerned about the article. Narrow-mindedness is not a good thing, and it does not inspire me to work with you. Sorry, but it just doesn't. FrozenPurpleCube 21:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a circular argument. You know that it has 4,000 employees because you read it on the web site (as you stated above). You trust that the web site is telling the truth because the company has 4,000 employees. Citing sources for notable companies to demonstrate that they satisfy WP:CORP isn't hard, but if you don't do it the first time that an article comes up at AFD, the article most likely will be challenged again, months or years from now. It also gives you a proper foundation for assertions about the size and significance of the company, because you can point to source material to back up what you claim. Uncle G 20:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Gee, I'm sorry, but I don't have a copy of an Australian Business Almanac (or Newspaper, or whatever) on hand, and in lieu of evidence to the contrary, I'm going to assume that a company that is large enough to have over 4000 employees is not going to outright lie on their website, that as a subsidiary of a major US company (Campbells), they are going to be truthful, and that ultimately, the contents of article can be verified. If they can't, then I request you identify what can't be, so it can be specifically dealt with. More importantly though, my real problem was that they should NEVER have been speedied. That was such a bad result that it brings into question the whole Speedy Deletion process. FrozenPurpleCube 19:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If we kept articles based purely upon the article content and what the subject's own web site says, we'd be keeping all sorts of rubbish. If this company is as notable as you think, it should be easy to make a proper argument, citing sources, demonstrating that the WP:CORP criteria are satisfied. Uncle G 18:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Arnott is arguably an Australian icon. One of the companies that are very popular to many Australian because of their product if not simply because of Tim Tam.vhadiant 16:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per above - AfDs are getting ridiculous! PT (s-s-s-s) 20:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: It's a wholly-owned subsidiary of Campbell Soup Company. Here's a little something for WP:CORP. --Aaron 21:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. Meets the requirements for product notability. Original speedy was nonsense.Cynical 22:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Arnott's is a major and highly significant company in Australia. The article needs expanding with history and cultural impact sections. It's current stubby state is not a good indication of the importance of this comapny to Australian culture and the Australian identity. -dmmaus 00:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is getting absurd. This is an iconic Australian company name. G11 is clearly a very bad idea. 1,640 Google News Archives for Arnotts see [2]. Capitalistroadster 04:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 04:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, really obvious keep, and ridiculous speedy deletion and nomination (no offence to Thryduulf, I know this is procedural after the WP:DRV. Alright Uncle G, we're working on the sources! Keep your hair on! --Canley 04:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Who on earth would speedy this article? its almost a farce given the snowball effect here that such a thing could have happened. Ansell 04:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per above. Catchpole 06:59, 11 October 2006 (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.