Talk:Fancy Fortune Cookies

Media appearances accuracy
The "Media appearances" section contributes to the overall glossy-brochure appearance of the article, and the individual items listed seem likely to be challenged as to their accuracy. The section leads off with "Fancy Fortune Cookies' products have appeared in a number of television programs and popular magazines". Using the "Books" subsection as an example, the first four are: There's a nice two-page writeup on Mike Fry and the cookies in Be Unreasonable, but I don't see either mentioned in Purple Cow or The Bootstrappers Bible, maybe I'm missing something. Fortune Cookie Chronicles seems to only mention fortune cookies in general, not these in particular. I think there's a lot in this section that needs to be cut out or better explained. --CliffC (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Purple Cow by Seth Godin
 * The Bootstrappers Bible by Seth Godin
 * Be Unreasonable by Paul Lemburg
 * Fortune Cookie Chronicles by Jennifer 8. Lee


 * CliffC - Mike and Fancy Fortune Cookies is indeed listed in The Fortune Cookie Chronicles (page 39-40), a quick Amazon.com search will confirm this.


 * I did some more research and realized that the Fancy Fortune Cookies site is in error on a couple of the books listed, I'll edit and or omit until i can confirm the Purple Cow reference (actually appeared in a related, but separate ebook), and the Bootstrapper's Bible reference.


 * Should I include a reference for each book appearance when possible, including page number, or is that necessary? Kaschro (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Celebrity usage (since notability is not contagious), or trivial media mentions of the product don't belong here, so no references are needed. Looking at the four books mentioned above for some indication of the company's notability, I saw that the two pages in Be Unreasonable might be useful as a citation (footnote) to support statements in the History section.  Jennifer 8. Lee mentions the company in a single sentence in the midst of a general discussion of fortune cookies as "One of the most successful companies offering flavored fortune cookies". I missed that because she identifies Mike Fry by his former occupation and not by name.  If there's anything solid and verifiable in that section, I suggest you work it into the article as a citation.  --CliffC (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Reads Like an Advertisement tag
The article has been tagged as being written like an advertisement. I have taken care to use a neutral viewpoint and have included numerous references. I would refer you to the articles on other companies such as Jones Soda, Haribo, Jelly Belly, etc. I do not see anything in this article that is out of line with other accepted articles on notable companies within Wikipedia (and is in fact better referenced than many). With this in mind I feel that the tag placement was unwarranted. Kaschro (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I see that another editor has cleaned up the article's peacock language and its 'media appearances' and other trivia, and removed the advert tag. Your comparison of this article to others uses an argument we call WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS that is never a valid one.  Somewhat beside the point, I don't see Mr. Jones or Mr. Belly editing their own articles. --CliffC (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I am well aware of the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, the point here was that nothing listed in the article was a blatant advertisement, and everything was relevant to the company and history, including flavors. I am not Mr. Fancy Fortune Cookies, so your "beside the point" point is irrelevant. Kaschro (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Advertising, whether 'blatant' or otherwise, is not permitted in Wikipedia. Please read WP:NOTADVERTISING #5 and follow its first and third blue links; they are important to your article.  Better yet, here's a copy:"5. Advertising. Articles about companies and products are written in an objective and unbiased style. Article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small 'garage' or local companies are typically unacceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify major organizations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs. See also Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability. Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so."
 * As to your not being Mr. Fancy Fortune Cookies, are you saying that you have no relationship with the company? --CliffC (talk) 01:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Citation style
The footnotes in this article need to be cleaned up, especially the ones for newspaper articles. Just giving a newspaper title and year doesn't help much; you need to provide the article title, date, author, etc., as well as URL if the article is online. Without that information, it's difficult to verify the information and establish whether or not the company is notable. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 16:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I will add those specifics today, I was not aware that they were necessary. Kaschro (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Recent Edits
Since there seem to be some issues with the claim of advertising/ promotion here, let me ask this: how can I write an informative article on a company without mentioning what it produces? The current edits leave past history in place, but give no insights on the current company.

I am of course aware of the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but at the same time, rationally if numerous other articles exist on companies with similar product lines, and have existed for quite some time, it would seem that this can be a difference in the OPINION of individual editors, and not necessarily an issue with Wikipedia policy.

Suggestions?

Kaschro (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipeda is not an appropriate place to make a product catalogue. Company history is relevant here, product listings are not. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 15:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)