Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burry's

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. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 15:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Burry's[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)

NN company, fails the GNG, WP:CORP and CORPDEPTH. No significant coverage in reliable sources found beyond namedrops and casual mentions, and article has never been sourced. Notability tagged for over a decade. Prod removed by deprodder without rationale or comment. Ravenswing 12:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's coverage in sources such as The Ethnic Almanac, which discusses the company history; Prominent Families of New Jersey, which discusses the founding family; Candy and Snack Industry which discusses the production; and Modern Packaging which discusses the packaging. If you can't find information about this business then you're not really trying. See WP:NOEFFORT; WP:IGNORINGATD; WP:NOTCLEANUP; &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Leaving aside Prominent Families, which is not about the subject of the article, and that none of the publications you list are reliable enough to have Wikipedia articles of their own, the Ethnic Almanac cite is a casual mention, and the other two namedrops. To quote WP:CORPDEPTH, " Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements ..." Would you care to provide links to the precise cites you claim provide the significant coverage required?
And that aside, didn't you say in another AfD that essays were worthless? Why are you quoting them here? Ravenswing 14:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

leaning keep Anyone my age in the US is familiar with the brand, and there is still considerable nostalgia for the Burry-made GS cookies. Anyway, I find lots of hits in industry journals that mention them. It puzzles me that it appears to be somewhat difficult to document them, so I can't give this an unqualified keep, but back in the day this was a major US brand, and I'm hard-pressed to admit to a lack of notability. Mangoe (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are one of the companies that make Girl Scout Cookies. Been baking cookies and such for over a hundred years. Some say it was acquired by George Weston Limited but not sure about that. I see the contact information on their website, so I'm going to ask them some questions. Dream Focus 22:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It took a long time, but I've tracked down just about the whole history of the brand. There's fairly consistent coverage from the early 1940s until 1990, just under different names. Highlights include the company being listed on the American Stock Exchange until it's purchase by Burry Foods in '62, and getting a good deal of (admittedly semi-routine) coverage in The New York Times. The founder got an obit in the NYT and an Associated Press one that was pretty well publicized, and those suggest that if a person was noted for their association with the company, the company may be too. Similarly, Prominent Families of New Jersey shouldn't just be discarded as there's some coverage of the company. There's a decent paper trail following the aquisitions and sale of the company, and some coverage under each name (sources are in the article). It's not a clear-cut case, but I'll be back to cast a vote soon -- Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very cool. I also did some deep dives in newsprint. I love it when a notable company can be saves so that future generations can learn where girl scout cookies began. Collaboration is fun, and your edits are great! Lightburst (talk) 00:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is a strong keep based on the WP:SIGCOV. I searched old newsprint and found that the company is very notable. The girl scout cookies were most interesting to me-Plantation cookies? Would that name make it in 2020?...I was looking for my favorite...the lemonades - Check out this link of 1938 era GS cookies. I have added some RS and some other layout improvements, but I think Eddie891 did more work than I did. I was working on breweries most of the day. You see where my mind is at. Lightburst (talk) 01:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Important company with more than a century and a quarter of existence. WP:GN easily overcome. Important supplied of Girl Scout Cookies and many other products. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sourcing identified, meets GNG as unsurprisingly any 100+ year old company likely would. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Well done, all! – Toughpigs (talk) 03:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to Quaker Oats Company. I'm going to have to strongly go against the keep votes here and the assertions that this now passes WP:SIGCOV. The first most cited source is primary and the second most cited is about the founder of the company dying. Three more seem to be about the same thing. One of which is an extremely brief newspaper obituary. While another source is a blog entry and the last source is an brief excerpt from one of their commercials about their "slow baking process." None of those sources pass WP:SIGCOV or WP:NCORP and it's completely ridiculous to claim that they do. All that's left if you leave out those sources is like 2 articles about them being acquired by Quaker Oats Company. Which is not enough on it's own as a subject, let alone in number of sources or their depth, to say the company is notable enough for an article. Companies are acquired all the time and there's usually nothing notable about it. I'd be totally fine with it being merged or redirected to Quaker Oats Company though, but either option would be extremely generous. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Successfully company been in business since 1888. You don't survive that long with so many recognized products without being notable by reason of common sense. Dream Focus 04:33, 7 August 2020 (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.