Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bay Valley Foods


 * 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. — TKD::Talk 23:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Bay Valley Foods

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The purpose of the page appears to be only to advance original research arguments for the organization being a major polluter, based on  primary sources. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  13:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

*Keep (a) This article does describe the products manufactured. (b) It also supplies authoritative sources for the particulate matter the plant produces. If I lived in Pittsburgh, I would want to know about both (a) and (b). In short, this is a good example of the kind of thing that Wikipedia does well. Bellagio99 13:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. The Corp itself is not notable per WP:CORP, the intentions of the article creator are highly suspect. This is essentially an assassination piece. -- Y not? 14:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Apparently fails WP:CORP. Seems like a smear piece; once we delete the uncited, what's left? -- Mikeblas 14:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

*Keep (repeat). I've just edited and reformatted the badly written article. You might want to read again.

The article is very well referenced: more than almost any other WP articles I've read. It does describe the products. To be sure, it describes the company's pollution, but this appears to be fact-based and not slanted.



:Bellagio99 14:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. The major issue here is not presentation. The material on pollution is a textbook example of original research. No notable secondary sources are cited: the page explicitly presents primary sources, and draws its own conclusions. (Look for sentence beginning "Therefore, this facility".) The source for visible smoke plumes is an email address. The guidelines advise that articles should be based mainly on secondary sources; this helps ensure notability and neutrality. This page is making an argument, not just presenting information. With OR material removed, there's nothing left but a list of products, which is an advertisement. The page fails WP:CORP. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  14:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as POV-pushing synthesis of primary sources. There are no citations from secondary sources to indicate whether this particular plant's emissions are significantly out of the norm or have caused independent third parties to be concerned. --Dhartung | Talk 16:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete I withdraw my previous Keep suggestion. I am persuaded by the arguments here and on the BVF Talk page. Bellagio99 17:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Classic example of a stealth attack page, complete with poor sourcing: From the article: "nsolic@achd.net can verify this." Readers should not have to email random people to verify content. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  18:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete No material to be salvaged after removing not allowed (unverifiable, original research, stealth attacks) content. User:Krator (t c) 20:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per general guidelines of WP:CORP.  young  american  (wtf?) 01:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep' (a) 'I have added a reference to the Pittsburgh Post Gazette that discusses this facility. One of the main objections is that there is no press for this facility. This article show that this facility is a top emitter from a coal fired furnace. As other documentation in the article show, this facility was owned by Heinz, then Del Monte, Then by Bay Valley Foods. 67.163.247.142 12:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - stealth attack page; original research that is not even supported by the citations given; unverifiable sources and no secondary reliable sources (or unreliable - not even a blog post) provided (or found in independent searching) to support claims; potentially libelous; does not meet WP:CORP - and all of the other comments I made into the wee hours last night on the talk page, and the comments made here by an array of editors.  Further, based on several comments made by the only contributor to  the page - both on its talk page and elsewhere around the encyclopedia -  I believe this page was created with political motives  as a dirty trick - perhaps to  use a Wikipedia article as evidence of claims that seem not to have been reported anywhere else.   I am not often in the "delete" camp on Afds,  but this is  an open-and-shut classic case for deletion and I wholeheartedly endorse the action.  Tvoz | talk 02:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions.   --Gavin Collins 12:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)--

Keep (a) Keep (a) This article is similar to articles for Colgate Polmolive, Crest, Quacker Oats, tic tacs and other major multinational corporations. (b) It also supplies authoritative sources for the sections discussed. The main objection seems to be that Barak Obamas' wife is on the board of directors for the parent corporation, Treehouse Foods. I have striven to produce a good example of the kind of thing that Wikipedia does well. I wish to inform others about this company. Moreover, if you look through the discussion and history, I have been bending over backwards to accomodate the people who are insisting on deleting this article. This company is a major source of the toxins listed. This is not my opinion. It is taken directly from the permit. The permit is not online, but it can be obtained from me or the health department. Is it fair to require that all references be online? What did encyclopedias do before the internet? Other articles about manufacturers describe products and also negative aspects of a company. I had many other sections in this article, but those other sections have been deleted. Please view the history. Some of them can be put back into the article for completeness. The information on pollution is taken directly from the EPA's Toxic Release Information Database. These are not my numbers. The article does not judge the effects of this companies emissions. Instead, it merely quotes the EPA's Envirofact Warehouse's information on Hydrochloric Acid. Nowhere in the article does it mention visible plumes. I believe that there is a concerted effort here to keep this information from the american people. This article was here for months. Yesterday, I added a link from Mrs. Obamas' page to this article. Within an hour, the section on toxins in the Bay Valley article was deleted. An objection is that no notable sources are quoted. I quote the EPA, the permit authority for the county where the plant resides, and I quote the Lexdon Business Library. I never statte that the emissions are outside the norm. Many of these objections are to things that are not stated in the article. Many of these objections are slanderous. 67.163.247.142 02:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Please note: the above IP address,, is the same person as the creator of the article,  - he edits  and comments on talk under both identities interchangeably. Tvoz | talk 02:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Please note that I use the pronoun I in my defense here.  For example I state "I have been bending over backwards to accomodate the people" There is no attempt to hide my identity.  I was logged out and did not realize it.  The fact that I am attacked for any little issue goes a long way to show that I am not being treated fairly, and that there is some underlying agenda on the part of my attackers.    BmikeSci 15:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There was no accusation of anything in my post about the IP address - it was to inform editors that it was one voice speaking, not two. I invite editors to follow the links that this editor has posted on this page regarding other editors.  Other than the one that says I edit the Obama pages (among 1600+ other unique pages that I edit, and requiring the most edits because it is under the most attack by vandals, sockpuppets and other dirty tricksters),  I am finding that these links are bogus. Perhaps others will have a different experience. Tvoz | talk 17:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment'Check the internet archive for these pages!BmikeSci 18:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

♦Delete There is nothing left once the unverifiable OR is deleted. Prior to that, it was still marginal in terms of notability. The parent company might be notable; one factory is not. Since I read this page last night, much of the text has been moved around, apparently by BmikeSci. I am not sophisticated enough in using the History page to work it all out, but this kind of activity does not "smell" right, even if no text has been lost or changed. Comments should remain in the order in which they are written, and comments should go at the bottom of all previous text. I have nothing to do with elections in the U.S., being a Canadian, and have no ties to any organization or person mentioned here or in the article. Bielle 18:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 *  In two successive edits, Corvus cornix and Duae Quartunciae removed a series of additions to this thread which did not address arguments, but speculated on motives. One of these was my own comment. I am not sure if this was really appropriate; if not then I guess we are ignoring rules in good faith to assist substantive discussion and avoid ill will. I recommend this aside be ignored, and that people carry on the debate as before. For the record, the two diffs are diffs applied 20:48, 20 Aug. (21:56, 20 Aug) I have also left a message on guidelines and canvasing at BmikeSci. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  00:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * delete - unless some third party sources about the company can be found. --Rocksanddirt 23:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * delete messy and OR - ∅  ( ∅ ), 23:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment' My comments are being deleted from this log. BmikeSci 00:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It is true that some of your comments were removed by Corvus corvix. I noticed the removal, and followed up by removing a comment of my own on motives, that was irrelevant and possibly inflamatory. I apologise for that comment. Removing comments is pretty drastic, so I also gave a link to the relevant edit in the indented paragraph just above and a description of why they were removed. If you want to restore any of these, I will not object, but in all sincerity I strongly advise against it, as a move that could only make your position even worse than it is at present. But it is up to you. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  00:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and per WP:CORP. wikipediatrix 00:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - per User:Tvoz. It's primarily WP:OR and is being used as a vehicle to attack others - A l is o n  ☺ 01:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete in support of the numerous 'smear job' comments; I certainly read it as little more than 'this ebil corp dumps bad goo everywhere'. ThuranX 05:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. It seems to have attracted plenty of attention, and I am sure that that can be presented more fairly than the current version.  --Merovingian (T, C, E) 06:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete looks like a hatchet job, as noted above. MarkinBoston 02:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.