Talk:Rutter's

.

Requested move 4 April 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not Moved. General consensus that the apostrophe is dismabiguation enough. (non admin closure)  InsertCleverPhraseHere  08:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Rutter's → Rutter's (convenience store) – To distinguish with Rutter and Rutters, which confusingly differ only by punctuation. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. There is nothing else at Wikipedia named "rutters" except perhaps the plural of rutter (nautical).  The s plus the apostrophe is enough of a difference.  I will add a hatnote to this article to allay any concerns.  —  AjaxSmack   01:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Mild support although the apostrophe is visible enough in forecourt signage, in books in reference to the original farm store it isn't so consistent. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:SMALLDETAILS. I'm seeing little evidence that any of other (potentially) ambiguous topic would be referred to as Rutter's.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is the only article with Rutter's in the title, and per WP:SMALLDETAILS, it doesn't need further disambiguation. kennethaw88 • talk 21:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rutter's
I have reverted your changes to the Rutter's article for the following reasons: Based on the nature of your writing for this company, I feel compelled to inform you of Wikipedia's policy regarding paid editing: if you are being paid to create this content for Rutter's, you must disclose this relationship. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) The detailed history you have provided is entirely unsourced, and therefore, not verifiable.
 * 2) It is misleading to claim that this company has a 270 year history based on the history of the farm from which this company grew. The company itself was founded in the 1920s, and that is what the article should report.
 * 3) The rest of your updates, regarding Rutter's present product offerings, are blatant promotion and cannot be allowed to remain.

Rutter's Site
I am writing you in response to your message. I work for Rutter's and have the right to their history and documentation. I would like to publish this page. If I need to pay to do this, than can you please provide me with more information and how much this would cost? In addition, the history is correct. It is over 270. If you look at the dates, it says 1747. Please read it thoroughly to see that I have provided the correct documentation. I spent a lot of time on this page and would like the information to be published. Please provide me with the information I need to get this information on Wikipedia so that our company is correctly represented. Kirsten.stanley (talk) 16:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)kirsten.stanley
 * Kristen, the question is not whether you have the right to publish Rutter's history, but whether such history is correct and relevant. We would need independent sources to verify such history. And, as I have mentioned, the present company can really only be said to date back to the 1920s, at which point a couple of local dairy farmers began delivering their product commercially. The fact that they were farmers dating back to the 18th century isn't really relevant to the history of the company (even if the company, in their effort to embellish their own image, thinks that it is relevant). The other content you added is unacceptable to Wikipedia under any circumstances, as it is pure marketing, rather than encyclopedic factual content. Also, Wikipedia does not accept money to publish articles; it relies on volunteers (like myself) to create content that is as verifiable and neutral as possible. Company employees are discouraged from creating content about their companies because it is difficult to maintain the necessary neutrality. If you feel that Rutter's needs better visibility, there are other marketing options available. Wikipedia is not a marketing option. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Dan, my name is Kirsten. I have let customer service know about their very rude moderator. I apologize for not know Wikipedia's policies. You cannot assume everyone knows how it works. Additionally, I do not appreciate you questioning my knowledge on the company I work for, including the date it was formed. Thank you for giving me a very negative experience with Wikipedia.Kirsten.stanley (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)kirsten.stanley
 * Apologies for misreading your name. To clarify, I am not a moderator of Wikipedia, I am simply a volunteer editor, like all the other editors here at Wikipedia. I am not aware that Wikipedia has a "customer service" department, so I'm not sure to whom you complained. I recommend that if you have a problem with my behavior, you report it at the Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents. An administrator can review our interaction and take any action deemed appropriate. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit Request for Rutter's Page
Awards •	Won International Convenience Retailer of the Year by NACS and Insight. Rutter’s is the only U.S. based convenience store to win this award (2014) •	Ranked First Place in Menu Variety by CSP (2018) •	Director of Foodservice, Ryan Krebs, chosen as Foodservice Leader of the Year by CSNews (2017) •	Top Women in Convenience for three years in a row by Convenience Store News (2015-2017) •	Received First Place in CSP’s Mystery Shop and set a new record (2017) •	Most Kid-Friendly Convenience Store Chain by CSP (2017) •	Rutter’s President and CEO, Scott Hartman, was inducted into the Candy Hall of Fame by CSP (2017) •	Ranked as the Top Convenience Store Chain in 25 Greatest Coffee Programs by CSP (2017) •	Top C-Store with Cleanest Restrooms by CSP (2017) •	Ranked Fifth on List of Top 100 Privately Held Companies in Central PA by Central Penn Business Journal (2016) •	Voted as the Healthiest Convenience Store Chain by CSP (2016) •	Ranked First in Brand Fit and Loyalty and Second in Best Food and Beverage in National Convenience Store Survey by Technomic (2016) •	Won the Cornerstone Award by SpiriTrust Lutheran (2016) •	Ranked First on List of Top 100 Privately Held Companies in York County by Central Penn Business Journal (2013, 2015) •	Ranked Second on List of Top 100 Privately Held Companies in Central PA by Central Penn Business Journal (2013, 2015) •	Best Prepared Food Innovator by CSNews (2013) •	Ranked Pennsylvania’s Convenience Store Chain of the Year by Griffin Publishing (2013) •	Voted Food Service Retailer of the Year by CSNews (2012) •	Won Best Mobile Application Award by Retail TouchPoints Magazine (2012) •	Convenience Store Chain of the Year by CSDecisions (2010) •	Voted Best New Food Service Concept of the Year by CSDecision (2009) •	Won the Eco Superhero Award by CSP Magazine and Captain Planet Foundation (2009) •	Awarded Corporate Citizen of the Year by Pennsylvania Citizens for Better Libraries (2009) •	Received Convenience Store Innovator of the Year recognition by Griffin Publishing (2008)

Slogan Rutter’s current slogans are “Why Go Anywhere Else?” and “Convenience at the Speed of Life”. The beverage company also uses the slogan, “Why Drink Anything Else” for their beverages. An earlier slogan for Rutter’s was “Round the corner, down the street, convenience like no others…Rutter’s”.

Kirsten.stanley (talk) 13:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)kirsten.stanley

❌Additional information is required. Kirsten, thank you for your proposals to the Rutter's page. Please understand that from your position as company archivist for Rutter's, you have special access to historical documents that we, unfortunately, do not have. Ultimately, its these sources which enable information to be added to a Wikipedia article. In order to expedite your request, please advise as to the sources of this information, or inform us of where these sources can more-easily be found. This would assist us greatly in our attempts to cross check the information on our way towards determining whether it's added to the article. Please note, as my colleague WikiDan61 mentioned, this would not include information garnered from Rutter's itself. These references ought to come from reliable, second and third party sources. These may include government sources, as well as substantial local or national media coverage including but not limited to newspapers or articles in journals covering the food industry. If the information is locatable, and if it passes both Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources and neutral point of view, then the information deserves to be in the article, and that's where we'll work to place it. Please advise regarding the needed information here on this Rutter's talk page at your earliest convenience. Regards,  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   14:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Also note, as previously noted on my user talk page, that the material following the history section is too overtly promotional and will require a complete rewrite to be acceptable as Wikipedia content. Also, I will reiterate my personal opinion that any history prior to the 1921 founding of the Rutter Brothers Dairy is just specious. Yes, the Rutter family owned a family farm dating back to the 18th century, but the history of this business can really only be traced to the 1920s. Any attempt to claim an older history is more marketing than fact. However, if others disagree with this opinion, I'm willing to let community consensus prevail. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with you . I think that in helping to describe for Kirsten Wikipedia's requirements for references, it's best not to think of this as someone questioning another person's knowledge, but rather, think of this requirement as a need to balance a scale. The weight of a claim in an article ought to equal that of its references. The claim that a modern day convenience store can trace its roots all the way back to the mid-18th century is an impressive claim. That would mean that this business entity is older than the country it is in. Kirsten is correct, when they say that they have provided a reference for this. But as noted, the weight of this reference does not seem to balance the scale. So to Kirsten: I look forward to your advising us on additional references which we can use. I understand it's the weekend, but please do so at your earliest convenience so that we may get started on your edit request as soon as possible. If not, I'm afraid the information will have to be deleted. Thank you for your help.   Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   09:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced/primary sources/unexplained changes
As Wikipedia is a collaborative project, edit summaries are very helpful, especially if there is not a source directly cited in-line for the change or a primary source is replacing secondary/tertiary sources. In some cases, discussion on the article's talk page may be needed.

In this article, we have an editor who has disclosed a conflict of interest,. To avoid various issues, I'm going to take this slowly, one issue at a time.

Content/sources
For openers, I'd like to look at what we are including and our sources. For example: "Rutter’s RUSH Energy Tea line offers two different flavors: raspberry and tropical green tea. They are packed with vitamins B6, B12, and Niacin." (Sourced to Rutter's)

In general, Wikipedia prefers secondary and tertiary sources for information. There are two issues with primary sources. Primary sources may not be used for any information which is interpretive, opinionated or self-serving. Weight is also an issue.

That the teas are "packed with vitamins B6, B12 and Niacin" is advertising. The source is advertising and says "This tea is packed with Vitamins B6, B12, and Niacin." A company selling a product will highlight its strengths (B vitamins!) and omit weaknesses (whatever they might be, the site doesn't say: sugar/HFC, artificial colors/flavors/preservatives, price, environmental impact, whatever). That's self-serving.

WP:WEIGHT is often an issue when conflicted editors want to list and/or highlight various items. Wikipedia is not a guide to your store. I don't doubt that you carry a variety of goods, you are proud of your products and some customers want to know if you have X, what flavors, what sizes, what's the price, etc. The information is not encyclopedic. IMO, the first (and lowest) bar to inclusion here is coverage in independent reliable sources. If such sources are not discussing the tea, its flavors and its vitamins, it's clearly not of significant interest to the average reader. Yes, vertical (trade) publications will discuss details that the average reader will not be interested in (such as a burger chain switching from freeze-dried to frozen onions).

Comments before I start cleaning out some of this info? - Sum mer PhD v2.0 01:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Kudos for addressing the issue, but let's not pussy-foot around. If there is spam, remove it. (I've done so.) Other sourcing issues appear to have been addressed -- the list of awards, which was originally sourced solely to the company's website has now been thoroughly sourced to the individual websites of the awarding organizations or published coverage of the awards. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

SummerPhDv2.0 Wikipedia is not the most user friendly site. I am simply trying to get the most accurate information out there for this company. However, I just needed someone to simply walk me through how to do this correctly instead of going to 20 different pages on how to edit a page. You have done this to an extent and I appreciate it. However, I have been extremely frustrated with WikiDan61. I do not appreciate your comments on my pages and "warning" me or telling other users not to "pu**y-foot" around. That is a very rude comment. SummerPhDv2.0 has been helpful at walking through the page with me. You have not been.
 * I have tried to be as helpful as I can. I have tried to indicate places where your editing was too promotional. I have pointed out specific phrases in your content that were explicitly promotional, and I have removed those phrases from this article, only to have you restore them several weeks later. It is clear that your only purpose here is to promote your company, and that is not allowed. And, by the way, "pussy-foot" is not a lewd or rude comment that needs to be censored (e.g. pu**y-foot). The term refers to the practice of walking softly and gently, in the manner of a pussy cat, and, by extension, to "act cautiously or timidly, as if afraid to commit oneself". (See "pussyfoot" at dictionary.com.) WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I am just trying to get this Wikipedia page similar to the Sheetz Wikipedia page. They do not have citations. Why am I having so many issues?
 * Yours is a purely promotional account. Given the duration of disruption, I don't know why it hasn't been blocked yet. 73.159.24.89 (talk) 13:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've also requested administrative help in permanently expunging promotional text that appears to have copied content from the company's website. 73.159.24.89 (talk) 13:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , we have a saying on Wikipedia about "other stuff exists" not always being a valid argument. That's because, with move than five million articles, there will always be problematic content on Wikipedia, but that content shouldn't be used as a reason to create even more problematic content. Each article should be judged on its own merits, but held to the appropriate standards. Thank you for bringing the Sheetz article to our attention; I have now tagged it as lacking sufficient sources and reading like an advert. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I understand you have a ton of articles to look over. I do not think this page should be blocked, however, based on my lack of knowledge of how Wikipedia works. Please know that I have been just doing what I was instructed to do at my job. I understand that I need to have references now. I just wanted a little more patients with someone to assist.
 * My advice would be to stop editing the article directly and instead follow these instructions to request changes here on the talk page, : Simple COI request. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


 * "Pussy foot" around is rude only if you are offended by cats (who tread lightly). I am treading lightly.


 * The bad content here is not quite spam. It is not, however, "the most accurate information". It is clearly biased in favor of the company. I am now trimming the material discussed above. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 16:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, that's no longer an issue. The article has been reverted back to before the copyright violations, per WP:COPYVIO. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 16:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Convenience Store News/"awards"
Once the COI edits and copyright violations are addressed, I have a question regarding the copious use of Convenience Store News as both a source and the bestower of numerous awards. Is this an objective WP:RELIABLE source or an industry promotional publication, and are the honors significant for inclusion in the encyclopedia? I think we can reach a consensus that Awarded Corporate Citizen of the Year by Pennsylvania Citizens for Better Libraries doesn't belong. 73.159.24.89 (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


 * You're pretty much on the same track I'm on. My next issue was going to be the large number of non-notable "awards".


 * Yes, CSN has a lot of awards. It is a narrowly defined vertical periodical, focused on details of convenience store operation the average person is completely unfamiliar with, and the awards follow suit.


 * I have a fairly simple, completely objective way of handling awards. Various movies, peoples, cheeseburgers, forms of government, asteroids, greeting card companies, pet foods, etc. exist. Each and every one of them has periodicals, interest groups, trade groups, blogs, etc. dedicated to them. Each of those has countless articles, often including top 10 lists, "Best ______" articles and "awards". Some of those awards: the Oscars, the Nobel Prizes, etc. are very notable. The awards and the organizations that bestow them are the subject of considerable coverage in independent reliable sources. If the award itself is blue-link, non-redirect notable (i.e., the award has an article), I can see very few arguments about including it in the recipent's article.


 * Next is the notable organization with a set of awards that are notable, though the individual awards are not. These I would take on a case-by-case basis, based on whether or not there are independent reliable source discussing the organization winning the award.


 * Next is the notable organization with non-notable awards (e.g., AARP's Movies for Grown-ups Awards). Many trade guild, union and astroturf awards fall here. For the most part, the general public has shown passing-to-no interest in these awards. AARP members who receive their members magazine and actually read it might run across the article and give it a glance. Unlike the Oscars, though, general interest publications have little to no coverage focused on the awards. Most "Best of...", "Top 20...", etc. lists fall in here as well.


 * Finally, we have the non-notable awards from non-notable organizations. We have a range of stuff here: the Pearl Awards from the Faith-centered Music Association (the organization's president also runs Deseret Books, which happens to have signed most of the winners), Jim's Slasher Movie Blog's Most Creative Death Award, etc. If the award and organization are notable, start articles for them and we can talk.


 * Convenience Store News doesn't seem to have an article. Apparently it and the "awards" it makes are not notable. Yes, their website no doubt discusses them and someone either promoting a store or uncritically accepting promotional material might discuss them, but the group is essentially a mutual support organization.


 * Of the awards currently listed, none of the awards are notable. The only ones with apparently independent coverage are:
 * Ranked First in Brand Fit and Loyalty and Second in Best Food and Beverage in National Convenience Store Survey by Technomic. This cites a Fox43 article whose only source is "Rutter’s Farm Stores news release". This is a media source essentially republishing a press release. Thus it is not an independent source.
 * Won the Cornerstone Award by SpiriTrust Lutheran. This is sourced to the (hometown news) York Daily Record. The Rutter family was one of the largest donors to SpiriTrust Lutheran. SpiriTrust Lutheran gave them an award. If this article were about the Rutter family (it isn't), I might be in favor of noting they were one of the largest donors that year. Beyond that, it tells us nothing about the chain of convenience stores that the family of one or more of the presumed owners of the holding company that owns the chain gave money to a non-notable group we know nothing about. A local organization gave an award to a local family and a local newspaper reported it. The same issue likely reported on the stellar performances at the local high school's production of "Annie".
 * All of the rest are non-notable awards from non-notable organizations and/or unsourced and/or sourced only to the organization. I am boldly removing all of them. You may disagree with part or all of my assessment. If so, feel free to revert all or part of my removal and discuss the issue here. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 16:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * A thorough and logical assessment! Thank you, . 73.159.24.89 (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

"over 68 locations"
If you are reporting how much the U.S. government spent running air-conditioning in tents last year, "over $32 million" makes sense. If you are reporting how many people showed up for a parade, "over 600,000 people" might make sense. (There is, of course, the question of why it's always "over", never "under": "The film grossed under $1.3 billion." is just as logical as "over $1.25 billion".)

"Over 68" is absurd. The company knows how many stores they have open at any given time. If it's 68, say 68. If it's 69, say 69. Restaurants with "over 13 beers on tap", stores with "over 48 styles to choose from", etc. are trying to promote their business, not objectively report facts. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 04:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Topic of this article
Every article is about one topic which the title and lea should identify.

Currently, the article title says it is about "Rutter's" a chain of convenience stores. The article, however, isn't sure if it is about the chain of stores or "Rutter's Beverage Company.

We can write it one way or the other, but need to pick one. Currently, the one-and-only independent source (the hometown newspaper) is about the chain of convenience stores. I am tweaking the article to reflect this. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 04:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe that the chain of convenience stores and the related beverage brand are closely enough related to be included in the same article. In the same manner that Dunkin Donuts is a chain of donut and coffee shops, but they also sell their branded products in other retail stores. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * They are certainly closely related. All I did was move the info on the drink brand to its own section and create a redirect there from Rutter's Beverage Company. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 14:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Recent revert due to copyright violations
Much of this article was removed, per WP:COPYVIO, reverting the article to a December, 2011 version.

Apparently, a large block of text was copy-pasted from Rutter's various websites. By the time it was discovered (6 years later), it was no longer possible to excise the copyrighted material, forcing the revert.

As a result, notability is a glaring issue at the moment. The changes left the company's own websites and one local newspaper article as the only sources. We need to pull in additional sources to shore up notability here or risk deletion. As I personally feel that vertical publications -- trade magazines -- like Convenience Store News are weak sources of limited reliability and independence, I won't be searching for them personally. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 14:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)