Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guys Snack 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   no consensus. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 10:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Guys Snack Foods

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This company isn't notable. — Mr. Stradivarius  ( drop me a line ) 15:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I have to agree with the nom. There appear to be few to no reliable, third party references for this company. I was surprised to find so little when I tried searching the ghits for news, books and other sources, for a company that (according to its website) has its roots in 1938. This time, I have to lean toward the "not everythijng is notable enough for encyclopedic treatment" school of thought. Geoff  Who, me?  23:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I should point out that one reason the sources don't show up is because the article name is misspelled. Try this one for better results, although I still couldn't find anything useful in Google Scholar or Books: —  Mr. Stradivarius  ( drop me a line ) 00:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, this article is the best I could find from the news search. It can be summarized as "It was a company that made potato chips that has now gone bankrupt". There was also something in another article about the company's sewage creating a nuisance for locals, but no real impact on society other than this. — Mr. Stradivarius  ( drop me a line ) 01:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename. The original company, usually referred to as Guy's Foods, was notable; the notability of Guy's Snacks possibly depends on connection to the former company, but the article should be moved to the name currently in use or the most notable name for the company. Peter E. James (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It certainly gets more hits: I haven't got time now to look for examples that prove notability - could someone pick out a few choice articles? —  Mr. Stradivarius  ( drop me a line ) 03:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep: Definitely keep, with a little digging you can find lots of sources establishing this is/was a notable company. The nom rationale is simply wrong. ,  (Guy Caldwell 1985 obit, Associated Press);  ("the primary regional snack food manufacturer in the country.");  (Potato Chipper magazine 1961!) ("Guy's Foods, Inc. was founded by Guy Caldwell and his wife, Frances, in Kansas City, Missouri in 1938. At that time, their chief product was packaged nuts. They began their expansion program after World War II and began to manufacture ..."); ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; .--Milowent • talkblp-r  06:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the many sources! They will certainly be useful in this discussion, but I don't think they are enough to prove notability just yet. My concern is that a lot of the coverage in these sources is trivial, and falls under these categories (from WP:Notability (organizations and companies)):
 * brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business
 * simple statements that a product line is being changed,
 * passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization.
 * Also, most of these sources are local or limited interest circulation, another red flag listed on the notability criteria. The Kansas City Star might count as regional, but certainly not national. The mentions in the book references you provided are only in passing, and that is also not really sufficient. I'm not completely set on this article's deletion, though. I'd be interested to hear more about the time when there were 1000 people working in the Guy's Foods factory as it seems probable that a company of that size had a sizeable impact on society. I don't think the evidence presented so far is quite enough to justify keeping the article, however. — Mr. Stradivarius  ( drop me a line ) 12:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You're joking, right? I quickly find TWENTY cites about a subject you simply said wasn't "notable" and you dismiss them as not enough "just yet"?  The Kansas City Star is a major U.S. midwest newspaper, and Associated Press stories are often widely published.  Though many of the articles are behind paywalls, the article lengths appear to be decent in a number of cases.  Some of the articles do appear to deal with when 1,000 or more were employed by the company; I saw other articles about labor disputes which I didn't add to my cite recitation because I wasn't sure how substantial they were.  Clearly for a long period of time this was a big employer in the Kansas City area and a large market competitor in its field.--Milowent • talkblp-r  04:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I'm serious. Obviously this depends on how you interpret the notability criteria that I linked to. I'm in perfect agreement with you about the facts - that it is a large employer in Kansas, that it is a large market competitor in its field, and that it has existed for a long time. The references you provided back this up perfectly. I'm arguing that to be noteworthy enough to justify inclusion in an encyclopedia there needs to be something else. For example, maybe they invented a new type of production line. Or maybe they had some influence on American politics. Something more than just "they are a company that makes chips". This is my interpretation of the "depth of coverage" guidelines in the page I linked to, and of course there can be others. If you can find any references that provide this "something else", then I will agree that the page should be kept. If not, then I think we should wait for other editors to chime in until we can build a consensus. I will of course clarify my position further if the need arises. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius  ( drop me a line ) 11:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Depth of coverage isn't an excuse to use personal, subjective, opinions of importance. Notability is not subjective.  Depth of coverage is exactly what it says: coverage that is in depth, i.e. extensive and detailed.  It's not a code phrase to be misinterpreted in order to shoe-horn subjectivism in. And yes, Milowent has the wrong idea, too.  Evaluating notability isn't about finding soundbites and one-sentence mentions that say that something is important or famous.  It's about finding sources that are independent, and that document the subject in depth.  It's far more important how extensive the sources are in their coverage of the subject than what soundbites they contain.  Uncle G (talk) 23:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually I am 100% right and perfect about such debates. Many of these sources appear to be lengthy though they are behind a paywall.  Sure I know what you mean about the 100 one-sentence mentions AfD discussions, but this isn't one of them.--Milowent • talkblp-r  02:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To Uncle G - fair enough. Thinking about it that way is a lot simpler, now that you point it out. To Milowent - I repeat my concern that the references you provided were either passing mentions or routine coverage of product lines, mergers, etc. Could you point out which sources, exactly, provide lengthy coverage? Even if they are behind a paywall, I'm sure someone can check them somehow. — Mr. Stradivarius  ( drop me a line ) 05:32, 21 January 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.