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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Albanese Candy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I'm aware this recently resulted in a Keep non-admin closure since it was over the minimum 7 days. It only had two editors (Reywas92 and Lightburst) commenting. The first states that "significant coverage" exists and the second supported this although didn't make any comment. Having examined the sources, none are even remotely close to meeting the criteria for establishing notability.

• From the article, these references from edayleaders.com, and the topic company's About page on their own website are WP:PRIMARY sources.
• This from the Chicago Tribune was mentioned by Reywas92 as being significant and "more than trivial" but is in fact entirely based on an interview with the owner and is a putt piece. It has no "Independent Content" and fails WP:ORGIND.
• This from visitindiana.com is from the "Indiana Insider Blog" and fails as a reliable source.
• This from nwi.com is another puff piece and relies entirely on an interview with the founder and fails WP:ORGIND.
• Other references mentioned by Reywas92 at the AfD suffer the same faults and fail for the same reasons. This from The Times is yet another puff piece that relies on an interview with the founder, fails ORGIND.
• This next piece from The Times is based on a company announcement with no Independent Content and discusses a new product line called "Gummi Army" consisting of soldier-shaped Gummies (with names!) to send to US troops in the Middles East, definitly not significant and also fails ORGIND.
• This PDF from The Beacher is a tiny local publisher but leaving that aside, is entirely based on the journalist getting a tour by the tour guide of the factory, relies entirely on quotations from the founder and information provided by the company, contains no Independent Content, fails ORGIND.
• Finally, this from The Times is an article based on an interview with the founder and fails WP:ORGIND.

I am unable to locate a single reference that meets the criteria for notability, topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep Chicago Tribune article and Times articles have plenty of substantive content and description of the company. Including quotations does not make it an interview or non-independent. Both are clearly part of journalistic main sections of the paper, not puff pieces; there was still editorial oversight and ORGIND does not exclude it. Same for NWI and second and third Times articles. Including interviews does not make the whole piece an interview. The Indiana Office of Tourism Development is absolutely a reliable source, even if not good for notability, and being published in blog format does not negate that. Reywas92^Talk 20:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:ORGIND, a reference must contain original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Including snippets from interviews or quotations doesn't automatically mean a reference fails the criteria for establishing notability, but these articles contain no other information and fail to provide any Independent Content. Can you point to any text in those articles that meets this requirement? HighKing⁺⁺ 11:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per HighKing's analysis of the sources. No opinion—I have not evaluated all the sources—but note that some are not reliable, such as a predatory journal that was just added. buidhe 21:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, HighKing's analysis of the sources brought up by Reywas92 is incorrect. They are very clearly not based on interviews, the act of including a quote in an article does not make that article an interview. The last article in the Times and the NWI article are clearly significant coverage, and the Indiana Insider Blog is run by the Indiana Office of Tourism Development, which means it qualifies as a reliable source despite technically being a blog. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's nothing in any of those references that provides "independent analysis/opinion/etc". Point to any passages of those articles that contains "Independent Content" and I'm open to changing my mind. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Devonian Wombat. Sources like The Times are solid legitimate journalism containing original research (a good thing in journalism), interviews with people and original writing by the journalist - published in a reliable source newspaper with editorial oversight. It has everything one would expect to find in a reliable source (including original photo journalism). The "interview" complaint is over-reach, that is when there is a giant block of text quoted with little or no journalism involved, or a question/answer genre. -- GreenC 23:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:GNG: I added some more information and references to the article, including another Chicago Tribune piece and several from the Munster Times. This is obviously a well-loved regional landmark that gets sustained coverage over many years, in many different contexts. The nominator can try to nitpick every source to death, but if you have to cite five different policies in an exhaustive list of nitpicks then it's usually a good sign that you're overthinking it. — Toughpigs (talk) 00:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Per rationale & analysis brought forward by HighKing. Celestina007 (talk) 09:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep __ Notable company and was rightfully closed by User:Buidhe 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 10:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep Notable company and was rightfully closed by User:Buidhe Amply sourced and meets WP:GNG. They also make the world's best gum drops, my wife is a fan, and we have visited their factory store. And it is indeed far away from our home and 'off the beaten path.'

As was noted in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albanese Candy first nomination:

Significant coverage includes [1] (already in the article, more than trivial), [2], [3], [4], [5]/[6], [7], [8]. I know these have a local WP:AUD but as the world's second largest maker of gummy bears and the largest non-chocolate candy maker in Canada (plenty large in the US and elsewhere too), I think this is a notable company. .

Thomas, Phyllis (June 19, 2012). Indiana Off the Beaten Path: A Guide to Unique Places (E-book). Guilford, Connecticut: Globe Pequot. p. 98. ISBN 0762786051. ISBN 9780762786053.7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are also three separate videos, one of which as on the Food Network.

• "The World's Best Gummies are Made at Albanese Candy Factory" (Video). visitindiana. December 20, 2010 – via YouTube.
• "Albanese Featured on Unwrapped" (Video). Unwrapped. Food Network. November 8, 2010 – via YouTube.
• "Albanese Candy Factory: Too much sugar?" (Video). Santos Chronicles. August 1, 2019 – via YouTube. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. In fact, the article in its present state (not the same as when this 2nd AFD was initiated within days of the 1st closure) on its face establishes notability and verifiability. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In relation to the new references mentioned above. The "book" was published by visitindiana who also published one of the videos. The book is aimed at tourists (no problems so far) and contains a single paragraph on the company that mainly describes the novelty shapes and flavours and encourages people to attend the "fascinating free tour". Contains zero information on the actual company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The videos are promotional videos. This short (1:33) video was posted by visitindiana and is a camera tour of children visiting the factory store and clips of lots of candy. There is only a music track. It is entirely promotional and says nothing about the company, fails both WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. The next video is a PRIMARY source and was posted by the company. The final video was posted by "a family travel vlog] and fails as a [[WP:RS|reliable source]. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't turn this into a damn refbomb of every tiny little mention. It's not encyclopedic to note that a company has a website and social media, how effing mundane in 2020. This was a bare passing mention in [9] with no discussion or evidence of meaningfulness whatsoever. Don't give me this "learned journal" nonsense and show some critical analysis not a blind inclusion anything that notes the name. Ridiculous that I had to remove a random person's TripAdvisor review too. And HighKing is right, "Santos Chronicles" isn't a newspaper, it's a random person's vlog. Just because an article has more sources and links doesn't mean it's any better. Reywas92^Talk 18:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Reywas92:. my own unsolicited opinion is that a few primary and or promotional items can be useful for our readers to gain perspective on the operations. We do have other SIGCOV to denote notability. To that end I have re-added the promotional video tour of the retail shop. I am pleased with the progress, and hope that we can collaborate to improve the article instead of being combative. I appreciate you and your editorial abilities. Lightburst (talk) 20:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep page has been improved. Notability that more than one media outlet announced 33 million dollar expansion.User name:Davidstewartharvey
• Comment Article now suffers from citation overkill and yet there still isn't a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notabilty. The videos are promotional and the "best" references are "Come Visit" promotions. It would be very helpful to select what are considered the WP:THREE best references to establish notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/ct-0924-made-indiana-albanese-20170923-story.html and https://www.newspapers.com/clip/52342178/the-times/ prove it easily passes WP:GNG. Dream Focus 01:58, 15 June 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.