Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Campbells Shortbread

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

Campbells Shortbread

Delete This page has been highlighted by other users as not having valid references and for not being notable. The page was added recently and includes 2 external references; both of which appear to be written by the company itself. Despite warnings, no independent references have been added. Spyrobot (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I fixed the header for you, as you meant to list Campbells Shortbread, not PageName. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no substantial third party coverage whatsoever. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment hah, and I thought someone had written a bot to automatically AfD articles with {{notability}} tags or something. I guess the question is whether these trade magazine articles are acceptable: [1][2]. They claim that Campbells are Scotland's oldest bakery, but I'm not sure whether that statement had any editorial oversight. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. cab (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A google check shows only advertisements and pages by the company itself. (Berjangles (talk) 15:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Having difficulty finding independent sources, but their products are on supermarket shelves worldwide. Mayalld (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Mayalld, initially I thought that this was indeed a company with worldwide products, but this is not the same as Campbells that makes the soups, etc. On this company I cannot find any third party references for notability. (Thebensteads (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Comment it is indeed a different company to the soups and tinned food lot. However, their Petticoat Tails shortbread is very widely known Mayalld (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We can verify 1) that this is a 170 year old business, remarkable for being in the same family. 2) It is Scotland's oldest bakery [3]. That's easily enough to keep.--Doc^g 01:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the text in this reference appears to be written by the company itself, and so cannot be considered a third party reference. (Berjangles (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Visit Scotland is a government organisation. Whoever wrote the text (and you are speculating) it is published by a reliable third-part source.--Doc^g 20:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm pretty sure that the companies themselves write these texts for this website. If you look at a selection of them you will see the words "us" and "we" used a lot; e.g. [4]. (Berjangles (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Comment The reference given here by Doc is the same one as used in the original article (Campbells Shortbread) and was highlighted as not being a third-party reference. The site is, in effect, a collection of advertisements for local services. (Spyrobot (talk) 08:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Comment Doc, VisitScotland.com is not a government organisation. See the wikipedia articles for visitscotland and visitscotland.com (eTourism Ltd). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.195.185.190 (talk) 10:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Em, read closer. eTourism ltd is partly OWNED by VisitScotland, which is the government tourist agency.[5]--Doc^g 21:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - add to the previous prooven facts that it is worldwide in its appeal (com.hk?!?!). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exit2DOS2000 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How are you concluding that the previous facts are proven? Isn't that the debate; about whether the reference is third party or not? Looking at the link...not many of the products listed have their own wikipedia pages —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.195.185.190 (talk) 10:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cab has shown 2 links that I believe are solid enough to confirm that this is in fact the oldest. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 22:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all of the discussion on this topic. It generated more input than I was expecting. The arguments appear to be;

- If the company is the oldest bakery in Scotland then this is certainly notable and the article should stand.

- However, the reference for this claim does not appear to be independent, third party.

This second point was highlighted on the article's page, but no third party reference has been found. The claim may well be true, however Wikipedia can only show information that is independently verifiable. Without this claim, the article loses notability.

I hope this is a fair summary of the discussion.

(Spyrobot (talk) 16:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Delete - fails verifiability on any claim to notability, thus failing WP:COMPANY. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:56, 21 February 2008 (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.