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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ZChocolat.com[edit]

ZChocolat.com (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)

Advertisement sourced with dead links and primary sources fails WP:CORP. Can find no mention of this co. at Le Figaro. Archived version of Forbes url is a brief review. Vrac (talk) 14:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete of course as all my searches (News, Books, highbeam and thefreelibrary) all found results...press releases and other promotional self-generated content. Nothing at all to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep Feature articles

• The Los Angeles Times For the chocolate lover, spectacular Z Chocolat, in a mahogany box even,
• Another feature here zChocolat: a 15-year-old digital native retailer
• Another EDITOR’S PICK zChocolat French Chocolate
• The Wall St. Journal paragraph in 2003 Net the Perfect Gift
• Other awards etc, appear properly archived on their website, so it's not like they don't exist somewhere.[1]

Seems to be high praise for the product and the website's ease of use. I've updated some of the refs, the writing is dated. I'll have a look at that later. 009o9 (talk) 08:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, posssibly speedy delete by G11. The references given are promotional pieces, listing them as a desirable gift, even tho published in otherwise reputable sources. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia. There's quite enough splaces for them to advertise. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that what you are doing here is destroying the last vestiges of credibility that Wikipedia has, right? By you and your few friend's interpretation, the small firm that gains recognition by climbing to the top of its genre is not welcome here, even when meeting the guidelines and policies. Only the rent-seeking, labor arbitraging giants, who have not created on net-new job in the past decade will be retained on Wikipedia. Yeah, that will be great for the encyclopedia's credibility, might just a well tie the Wikipedia policies to the donor's list in the public's perception. Not that it matters, but zChocolat passes my reading of the Primary criteria section in WP:NCORP. Sure, there are plenty of places to advertize, but where will one go to get even a moderately neutral overview of a notable company's creative works? 009o9 (talk) 12:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP contains articles only on those things that are already important, and are consequently written about elsewhere in a substantial way; that's the orientation an encycopedia ought to have. We are not an agency for social reform, except in one particular: supporting free knowledge by creating a free npov encyclopedia that cannot be used for advertising--even advertising the most worthy enterprises. It's promotionalism that would destroy our credibility. DGG ( talk ) 16:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains independently sourced facts, there is no advertising here. See "Primary sources" section in WP:ORGNOT, according to that essay, details about product offering can even be PRIMARY, which they are not in this article. Additionally, Template:Advert states: "Don't add this tag simply because the material in the article shows a company or a product in an overall positive light or because it provides an encyclopedic summary of a product's features." 009o9 (talk) 18:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article's "positive light" is not neutral. It is an advertisement, not a neutral encyclopedic article. "premium handmade"..."featured"..."work exclusively"..."award-winning master"..."242 countries worldwide" (there are not 242 countries on this planet)..."has been rated by Forbes...since 2005" (it was rated in 2005, now Forbes doesn't even have a mention of it on its website)..."offers"..."features"...etc... Vrac (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, the article is dated. The Department of State recognizes 195 countries, and these 60 or so territories.[2] so that verbiage could be changed to include territories, or just dropped. I'll go ahead and spend a few seconds redlining the article, my last pass was just recovering references. 009o9 (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Do you really think that people are buying "premium handmade" French chocolates from "award-winning master" chefs in every country and territory on planet Earth? The point is that this is marketing b.s., like I said it's not an encyclopedic article. Vrac (talk) 19:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, but apparently they have the option to send their gift anywhere they want. I did a quick redline addressing your concerns and looked up the Full Definition of ENCYCLOPEDIA: a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject[3] 009o9 (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I found another source [4] but its only a mention. Nothing notable popped up after doing a Google search. Google news had mostly press releases. The LA Times review [5] was written by Betty Hallock [6] who was the food editor. Here's another article written by her [7]. You can clearly see the difference in writing style and tone. I second DGG's view that the "notable" articles are advertising. For the articles are so promotional in nature and different than the writer's normal tone, it gives the impression that the writer was given an incentive to write the article. Either case, the company lacks notable coverage. -CerealKillerYum (talk) 09:54, 29 August 2015 (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.