Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enjoy Life Foods

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. Sandstein 10:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy Life Foods

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Dysklyver 20:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The news link above shows enough to satisfy WP:GNG if you ask me.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be useful it you actually said that source you are looking at. Dysklyver 18:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start with these.
this (an WP:RS per [1])
supporting mention
this
this
this--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well that’s not bad - but I still don't think this meets CORPDEPTH. With all due respect, companies like this are normally merged to their parent orginsation articles even with twice the coverage. Dysklyver 08:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, none of those references meet the criteria for establishing notability. In order to meet the criteria for establishing notability, a reference must be intellectually independent (therefore no based on company announcements or based on interviews with company sources) and must contain in-depth information on the company (more than a passing mention). Your references do none of those things. The progressivegrocer reference is based on a company announcement where they have added three new flavors to its Basked Chewey Bars line. Not intellectually independent, no indepth information on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. The foodengineeringmag reference is a passing mention that Gray Construction rehabilitated a 200,000-sq.-ft. building into a bakery specializing in allergy-safe foods for Enjoy Life Foods, nothing more, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. This mediapost reference is based on an article about the company "is a campaign to introduce a brand new positioning...", but contains no indepth information on the company and is not intellectually independent as it relies extensively on the agency charged with creating the new positioning and therefore fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. The chicagotribune article is not intellectually independent as it relies on an organization that received a food donation from the company and relies on quotations from the company CEO. The article is also not a reliable source since it states that the item "was posted by a community contributer". It fails WP:ORGIND and WP:RS. Finally, [the fooddive reference fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it is a mention-in-passing with no details on the company. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the standard policies here are WP:What Wikipedia is not and WP:Not advocacy at all costs, and if the best claims of significance are locally awarded year-to-year awards, that certainly shows we shouldn't be an advocate for them. SwisterTwister talk 04:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. No references have been produced that meet the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:52, 19 October 2017 (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.