Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chocolate bar brands

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 speedy keep‎. Nomination has been withdrawn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of chocolate bar brands[edit]

[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)

This list has currently over 700 entries (and it looks like it is growing fast) and the vast majority of the items added are not adequatley sourced. Most of these entries are clearly non-notable chocolate bars (most often variants of either notable or even non-notable chocolate bars) and don't have any Wikipedia page.

Even worse, out of the 82 sources used for this list, about half of them are blogs (like [1] or [2]) or commercial websites. And the list is still being expanded without reliable sources despite the tags.

So, I propose, at the very least, to trim the list to remove non-notable items (typically variants or any unsourced/red link entry). They just don't belong to Wikipedia. Please note that there is also a List of bean-to-bar chocolate manufacturers page. Zach (Talk) 14:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Zach (Talk) 14:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator - It is quite clear that there is a consensus to keep this list on Wikipedia. And despite some issues, things seem to go in the right direction. Given that this nomination has generated some discussion (including from myself), I think I will leave the closure to another editor. Zach (Talk) 09:20, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A chocolate manufacturer is not the same as a chocolate bar. The list absolutely needs all of the individual flavors and varieties trimmed, but a list of chocolate bars seems like a perfectly notable topic as a subarticle of Chocolate bar. Reywas92^Talk 21:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- This list is usefull & interesting, all the flavours & variates should be cut out but the brands should stay. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 22:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Bean-to-bar manufacturers is not the same as chocolate bar brands. "A bean-to-bar company produces chocolate by processing cocoa beans into a product in-house, rather than merely melting chocolate from another manufacturer. Some are large companies that own the entire process for economic reasons; others are small- or micro-batch producers and aim to control the whole process to improve quality, working conditions, or environmental impact." Not all large companies do that. There was a discussion about Kit Kat that reached a consensus that no variants were to be listed based on at least 300 in Japan alone that are seasonal, limited edition, and regional. Coldbolt: ignored that and added them. His reasoning was WP:OTHERCONTENT. It's easy to bring up references, but it's also on you to help reference things. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 01:39, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, surely meets WP:NLIST. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, kind of strange to nominate a page like this which was created all the way back in 2008. It has 20K pageviews over the last 30 days, so useful information to lots of people. Flavour variants were added over the years but with the older list there was no clear distinction between the bar brand and flavour variants. The way it is set up now makes sure there is this clear distinction. Also, it is lots of work to source 700 entries, but over the years new sources are added. Coldbolt (talk) 11:03, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But you and Mr. C.C. still added plenty of items without any source ([3], [4]) despite the page being tagged. This list is only getting worse with time. How do you expect any improvement? Zach (Talk) 11:33, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And the few sources you cited seem to be blogs ([5])... Zach (Talk) 11:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zacharie Grossen, you're making excuses to not make any improvements. Wikipedia, as you know, is a collaborative effort and many, many lists are dynamic lists and will never satisfy particular standards for completeness. That's why you and others need to help out with editing and adding references. Yes, it's big undertaking, but as long as we chip away at it, it can slowly be done. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 07:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, without prejudice to stubifying or tightening inclusion criteria, under SK1 unless a rationale for deletion rather than trimming entries is proposed. Zach, I'm going to start a new talk page section on inclusion criteria, your call as to further dispute resolution processes are required, but AfD does not really have the competence to act on this matter as it is out of scope. The closest equivalent would probably be an RfC. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Alpha3031, discussions for inclusion criteria have been held. The current criteria that is being discussed is the minimum percentage of chocolate needed in a bar to qualify as a chocolate bar (milk, white, and dark chocolate). Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 07:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem is that 2/3 of the list is completely unverifiable (no citation, no link). This list fails Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Zach (Talk) 10:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The contentious material has been boldly removed. If the main contributors to the list (@Mr. C.C.: and @Coldbolt:) are ok with that, then I'll be happy to retract my nomination for deletion. Zach (Talk) 18:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not okay with it, keep going on with your nomination, nominating this list is stupid anyway. Not putting in so many hours on something in Wikipedia ever again. Have a nice day. Coldbolt (talk) 20:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Coldbolt: Some of the material might be recycled and put where it is appropriate (like manufacturer articles), if *adequately* cited. So, you did not necessarily waste your time. But you need to take time to better understand WP:RS, to ...avoid wasting time in the future. Zach (Talk) 17:24, 8 November 2023 (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.