Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharwoods
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 of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 03:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sharwoods[edit]
No claim to notability, just links to the firm's website. Durova 01:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Sharwoods is just one among thousands of food manufacturers, can see no reason for the name to be in an encyclopaedia. Since no claim to notability is even asserted, it could perhaps be speedied. Flapdragon 02:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Sharwoods and the direct competitor Pataks are the two largest manufacturers of Indian sauces and foodstuffs in Britain. Pilatus 03:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- And this means they should be in an encycopaedia even when there's nothing say about them? Just how many thousands of non-notable companies would be included on the grounds that they are the biggest manufacturer of something or other? Even a tiny company could qualify if the product were obscure enough. And of course a tiny company could rightly get in if it were genuinely notable -- but size is not the same as notability. Please, people, Wikipedia is not a business directory and things don't get in just because they exist. Flapdragon 18:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Can I point you the direction of WP:CORP? Pataks and Sharwoods are household names, they are almost synonymous with "Indian cooking". Pilatus 18:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry to keep on but could you point me to something more specific? Which "multiple non-trivial published works/ranking indexes/stock market indexes" exactly? (Note we're talking about Sharwoods and not Pataks or Rank Hovis McDougall.) Some of the comments here imply an inability to distinguish between "yes, I've seen that in shops" and "yes, I'd expect to see it in an encyclopaedia". Even a small supermarket has thousands of product lines and brands; where should we draw the line? Everyone seems to think this is a notable company but no-one seems to know anything very notable to say about it, and we're still waiting to see any evidence of notability in the article. And no offence, but while I'm sure Sharwoods would love to be thought of as a synonym for Indian cooking, someone's idea of Indian cooking would have to be pretty limited to think "Indian cooking? Oh, you mean Sharwoods?"! Flapdragon 01:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Can I point you the direction of WP:CORP? Pataks and Sharwoods are household names, they are almost synonymous with "Indian cooking". Pilatus 18:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- And this means they should be in an encycopaedia even when there's nothing say about them? Just how many thousands of non-notable companies would be included on the grounds that they are the biggest manufacturer of something or other? Even a tiny company could qualify if the product were obscure enough. And of course a tiny company could rightly get in if it were genuinely notable -- but size is not the same as notability. Please, people, Wikipedia is not a business directory and things don't get in just because they exist. Flapdragon 18:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- Unencyclopedic. Reyk 06:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, notable company. I can find plenty of Sharwoods products in my local supermarket in Sweden. u p p l a n d 06:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable company. Well-known in Australia, too. Room for improvement [1]. Cnwb 09:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This company is in the leads market performance in their corner of the food industry. Whilst they are specialised, they are certainly notable and warrant an entry. The article does need to be expanded a great deal. Movementarian 10:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Company is
tastylarge enough to be notable. Articles requiring expansion shouldn't be deleted on that basis alone. --Squiddy 11:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply] - Keep or merge to Rank Hovis McDougall. Verifiable and well-known company - a household name in the UK and elsewhere. Merge would be fine as the current content is a stub; maybe RHM (brands) is called for, I don't know. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 12:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. An article is justified if it can be improved to include company details. Keep for now with a request for improvement. Rob cowie 13:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep obviously per everyone above, but stub-writers please remember to explain the notability of the subject when creating your stubs. Ideally, do that in your first edit. Durova was quite right to send this to AfD on the content I see. AndyJones 16:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. My favourite spice manufacturer, I can't find it in the US so have to import it from Canada. I will attempt to bring this stub up to code. =) Ifnord 22:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Maybe the article has been modified, since its nomination, but it seems to be a good start towards a worthwhile article. -- Geo Swan 23:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, of course. Just improve the article if you think it reads like an ad. Do deletionists want to be able to read the entire Wikipedia? Yeltensic42.618 23:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh? Who said it read like an ad? Flapdragon 01:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a reason often cited by deletionists against articles on "non-notable businesses", so I just pointed that out in case anyone was thinking that (also, the remark about it only linking the website implied as such). It was really more a bit of advice for this general kind of situation than anything to do with this article. Sorry that it wasn't clear, I should have worded that better. Yeltensic42.618 02:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Dropping that offensive "duh" would be a good step towards wording that better. JoaoRicardo 04:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Dropped it. Sorry, I just get tired of people voting delete on articles for (in my opinion) no good reason. Yeltensic42.618 06:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Dropping that offensive "duh" would be a good step towards wording that better. JoaoRicardo 04:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a reason often cited by deletionists against articles on "non-notable businesses", so I just pointed that out in case anyone was thinking that (also, the remark about it only linking the website implied as such). It was really more a bit of advice for this general kind of situation than anything to do with this article. Sorry that it wasn't clear, I should have worded that better. Yeltensic42.618 02:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh? Who said it read like an ad? Flapdragon 01:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and cleanup.--MONGO 01:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. JoaoRicardo 04:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep certainly asserts notability. Hiding talk 22:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- keep hundreds of thousands possibly millions of people rely on the safety of Sharwoods products every day. Why not delete Boeing instead? They're just another aerospace company. The food safety issues I have added to the article alone make this worthy of a place. Please make some effort on articles before nominating them for deletion. Mozzerati 19:42, 10 December 2005 (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.