Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Chips (3rd nomination)


 * 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The result was   withdrawn Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Charles Chips
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

I think this needs another look. The last nominator withdrew right out of the gate because someone linked to Gnews in the last AFD. However, in the first four pages, all I found were 1.) that they won a blind taste test at the Chicago Tribune, 2.) false positives out the yin yang for people named Charles Chips, and 3.) ads. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I found some sources written independently of the subject. However, I doubt if the article would progress beyond the Start status, given the fact that the current brand was bought in 1996. I suggest creating the article Hillside Snacks before moving Charles Chips there. Sp33dyphil  "Ad astra" 07:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Enough sources appear to exist to justify having an article about this brand, which is distinctive due to its longtime reliance on home delivery rather than retail sales. I disagree with moving this article to Hillside Snacks, because Hillside is merely the latest company to own this brand in its history. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Where are said sources? Don't just say "but there are sources", prove it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 16:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - I'm willing to change if significant coverage is demonstrated, but as 4.5 kg Hammer said, where are the sources? It is incumbent on the editors writing the article to provide sources to demonstrate notability.  In the absence of said, it is perfectly reasonable to begin deletion procedings. LonelyBeacon (talk) 17:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I oppose a move to an article about only one of the companies related to Charles Chips. (My family received home delivery of these fresh,delicious potato chips as well as the cookies. With large the (1 gallon, maybe) containers which got automatically refilled by the route man, it was like fattening hogs for the slaughter.)  Found several  articles about the company. The Chicago Tribune article is one independent and reliable source with significant coverage .  Even papers which are indexed online sometimes miss relevant stories in searches. This letter to the NY Times  is not a RS, but it implies that Charles Chips had been reported out of business in an earlier NY Times article. Per the summary from the search, "DOW INCHES AHEAD Series: BUSINESS DIGEST"- St. Petersburg Times - Mar 15, 1994, The $8-million deal enabled Charles Chips to reorganize its debt and emerge from ... Now a division of Blevins, Charles Chips employs about 150 people, ... " this story has some coverage of the company.  Here  is a story entirely about the company. Here is an article about their plant closing. Here is an article about the company being bought. This NY Times story, per the search summary,"The newest addition to this roster has to be Charles Chips, lightly salted potato chips made without preservatives, also far above average, ..." has coverage of the company. Here is another article about the company. Stopped looking through the Google news archive results, because the ones I point out suffice to show notability. Edison (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment OK, looked at more news archive results. See, , , , , , . Edison (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Charles Chips has enjoyed much significant coverage in independent, reliable sources—"Snack company passed through a number of owners: Charles Chips struggled against fierce competition" from The Morning Call, "The Great Potato Chip Debate" and "Charles Chips on Comeback Trail" from Lancaster New Era, "Chips Co. Still Delivers" from The Harlan Daily Enterprise, "Tampa company to buy Charles Chips" from St. Petersburg Times, "It's crunch time for Charles Chips - New owners say successful turnaround has a way to go " from Intelligencer Journal, and "The Crunchy Sound of Nostalgia" from South Florida Business Journal. Charles Chips easily passes GNG and WP:ORG. Goodvac (talk) 00:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - I just went back and re-read the first AFD ... it is beyond me how the article was kept then. I think Ten Pound Hammer was very much within his rights and had good justification to file this AFD based on the first attempt, and the complete lack of referencing.  That said, the references presented here, as a collection, look to me to demonstrate significant coverage, even if I couldn't see the entire article in every case.  I hope they get added into the article to prevent well-meaning editors from going through the deletion process a fourth time. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 24 August 2011 (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.