Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucky's Chocolates

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. postdlf (talk) 12:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky's Chocolates[edit]

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

Pure advertising, for a company that does not satisfy notability criteria. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 07:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asabenn (talk) 08:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC) (replying to "By all means persuade me (and others) otherwise, but it all seems to be based on blogs, lightweight "features" in magazines, and advertising. Where is the coverage in reliable sources? I recommend that you join in the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucky's Chocolates" )[reply]

I suppose it might be a fault of chocolate business that magazines that would cover it would be lightweight. The most immediate thing I can say for reliable sources is their coverage in a piece by Huma Qureshi here - http://humaqureshi.co.uk/?p=357 - who herself writes for the Guardian/Observer - http://humaqureshi.co.uk/?page_id=2 - though this piece was for the British Baker Magazine (http://www.bakeryinfo.co.uk/). Would that help?

Delete as not notable. If the only claim to distinctivness, in the Guardian piece, is that they are making cakes that are square it falls a long way short. There are a lot of small chocolatiers and specialist bakers in the UK at the moment. Only very few can hope to make it to the heady heights of a Wikipedia article. AJHingston (talk) 08:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Reply Well, I take the point about the many small chocolatiers and that the two main features so far of the brand are the shape, and the style taken from Alice in Wonderland. That said, would it be allowable to perhaps add a reference to them on the Works based on Alice in Wonderland page (merging them into a reference on a bigger page), as people whose work is based on the story? And obviously later on their own page if more coverage etc?Asabenn (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC) — Asabenn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  - Comment Only extra thing I can add is, in contrast to other small chocolatiers, it has been well reviewed/repped by Paul A. Young (whom Wikipedia does cover!)Asabenn (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Keep Have added more reviews (especially one from The Cooking Channel), and noted an extra event to attest for notability. Hope that's a step in a better direction Asabenn (talk) 17:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering if the piece is more on the right lines now? Asabenn (talk) 14:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly greatly improved, but I still see no mention of Lucky's in reliable sources - just blogs and trivial journalistic fluff - and the article still seems to be mainly advertising, which is not what Wikipedia is for. It's a shame that more people have not offered their opinions here. I'm not sure what happens if this debate does not elicit more interest. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 14:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

reply Hiya Snalwibma, thanks for the quick reply! Ok well it isn't looking possible to find anything more stoutly journalistic than the 'blogs and trivial..fluff' like the guardian journo's article and the Urban Grocer's reviews. Also, I'm tempted to ask out of interest what parts are clashing as 'advertising', only since I've aimed to stick close to dry fact (i.e. 'they do x, inspired by y. They started at z, and were reviewed thus' etc'). Still, I'm assuming the lack of coverage in bigger journals like UK newspapers will remain a hitch - in such a case, could I at least move the info back to one of my userpages (to later hopefully add any extra sources as they get coverage?) Asabenn (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would have liked to vote to keep but the coverage in published secondary sources, not just blogs, is just not there. Borock (talk) 01:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
reply Since I'm not really able to find any extra new secondary sources, I've moved the page details back to one of my userpages so it remains a draft. But yeah, I guess then delete for the moment (hopefully can make again later when extra material). Asabenn (talk) 12:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't seem to find sources that would satisfy the requirements for notability. Very possibly due to the fact that the company has only been open several months. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete nothing in gnews. fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 04:05, 8 April 2011 (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.