Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holland's Pies


 * 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.  A  Train talk 08:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Holland's Pies

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Totally fails WP:NCORP. However, some of the content could perhaps be salvaged and added to 2 Sisters Food Group. Dysklyver 12:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  13:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  13:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep As a long-established and recognised brand, for 150 years. This is not the same thing as NCORP. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well with that in mind could you explain Articles for deletion/Tamar Foods? Dysklyver  16:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * We work by policy, not precedent.
 * That said, Ginsters (and Holland's) are notable as they are the public face of two well-known brands. The companies behind them are not well known (until today I didn't even know that Holland's are now part of the recently infamous 2 Sisters). So I would agree with merging Tamar Foods to Samworth Brothers, but leave Ginsters as its own article. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks but I still don't get the distinction, at what point does NCORP stop applying? How is a brand defined from a company? and how is it defined as well known? To me, Tamar foods is very well known, having taken on Prince Charles food business and being well stocked in major supermarkets, yet I had never heard of Holland's Pies until yesterday, how is this measured? (sorry for discussing two articles at once, I just find the comparison useful since they are basically identical.) Dysklyver  18:45, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * NCORP applies if you're claiming something is notable because it's a business, which isn't the stronger claim here (although it's not a small company and probably does pass NCORP anyway). Instead it's because it's a brand, which has to be judged instead on its coverage as a distinct product, not a business.
 * If you're unfamiliar with them, then I presume you're in the South of England, or maybe even Yorkshire (I guess they must have pies in Yorkshire, as they have to put their Hendo's on something). They're a strongly North-Western brand. Secondly, until recently, you couldn't even buy them. Holland's market was (like Pukka Pies) for pies sold hot through pubs, chip shops and football grounds, rather than cold in shops for home heating. That doesn't stop them being hugely well known though, for their distinctively painted van fleet as much as anything. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * yes, I am in the south, where northern pies are clearly unknown :) This does clear up the issue I was having with your assertion of the brand/company distinction, it makes sense to me now. Dysklyver  19:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: fails WP:NCORP due to lack of necessary significant coverage. To the above keep vote, I would say that a company being long-established does not make it notable and neither does being recognised without proper sourcing.    Dr Strauss   talk   17:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: In my opinion, the article currently does not include enough independent sources to justify its notability, and a quick Google search does not reveal many more independent sources, but I agree that some of the content from the article may be worthy of being merged into 2 Sisters Food Group. Name goes here (talk | contribs) 18:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Clear failure of WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Practically zero coverage in reliable sources. Regarding the assertions of notability above based on being "long-established" for 150 years - that is literally listed as a specific example of an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. - WP:ORGSIG states that "No company is considered inherently notable". Suggesting that because you "recognise" the brand or its vehicles from your local area that it must be notable is another argument to avoid. Given the age of subject the utter lack of coverage is even more telling. AusLondonder (talk) 00:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment So just what are our notability standards for food brands? See Better Cheddars and the Mondelēz International massive brand navbox used for US brands. So Vichy Pastilles and Stoned Wheat Thins are OK, because they're part of Kraft, a US company, but Holland's Pies should go because they're not US? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * If you believe any article fails notability standards, from any country, nominate it. I will take a consistent approach, as should all editors. AusLondonder (talk) 09:33, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well most editors don't take a consistent approach, I have been threatened with indef blocks for nominating brands from that navbox above, regardless there are a lot of them at AfD right now. Dysklyver  08:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep, and add my reliable source. Historic company so keep for that reason. I found a reliable source in order to keep the article.desmay (talk) 00:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Didn't you read any of what is written above about that bogus keep rationale? AusLondonder (talk) 05:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Not enough to meet the criteria for establishing notability. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing ++ 17:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of hits in a news search, and in my experience, food brands turn up less in what we normally use as reliable sources. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  19:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Per ritchie. Things like this aren't going to be super newsworthy yet are still notable. Someone needs to make a WP:NFOOD which says something like "If item doth deign to be sold in at least five locations larger than 5,000 square foot and also a national chain notablility is conferred". L3X1  (distænt write)  21:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * superficially a WP:NFOOD type proposal looks good but from my experience of proposing and refining SNGs the advice of users including and  rings true that often solutions can look for problems i.e. avoid instruction creep.    Dr Strauss   talk   21:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Other than creating a NCORP exemption for food producers like this one, what is the point? also NBRAND would be a better title than NFOOD. Dysklyver  22:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, NBRAND would probably be better. I can think of a few AfDs where something household, like Borax (except it wasn't Borax) came up as a keeper. L3X1 (distænt write)  00:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In the absence of a change in policy/guidelines it isn't right to !vote keep based on personal feelings and preferences. AusLondonder (talk) 07:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 20 Mule Team Borax ? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep notable enough to be endorsed by a celebrity chef and sold at football grounds throughout the north. Reference provided. J3Mrs (talk) 07:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe have a look at WP:LOCALFAME which disproves your "sold at football grounds throughout the north" point and then at WP:CORPDEPTH.AusLondonder (talk) 08:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Norwich isn't in the north. Methinks you protest too much, maybe you should try one. :) J3Mrs (talk) 09:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * What J3Mrs says. Northerners are proud of home-bred products and businesses - until relatively recently, Morrisons was very much "a northern thing". You wouldn't be able to get a pint of Boddies in a Camden Town pub. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  19:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete or possibly merge some of the content to the parent company. There is already a good place for the listing of individual varieties, which is the firm's web site. There are no good references in the article: 3 links to their web site, one to a newspaper article that's 1/3 a company press release. No other sources have even been mentioned. I'm no fan of the GNG when there's something more specific but it does have its uses After this, we should take a look at many of the others mentioned for similar merging.    DGG ( talk ) 18:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "individual varieties" though? They make pies. This is an article on their pies. They only make pies (at that factory). No-one seriously claims to defend listing "steak and kidney" et al. as their "varieties", but that's not the purpose of AfD. But it would be a matter of great wailing and gnashing of teeth in Baxenden (and Lancashire) though if the Hollands factory were to lose production in favour of some other plant, elsewhere in the corporate chain (and as discussed earlier, no-one seems to see the sub-companies as individually notable per NCORP).
 * If anything is notable here, it is Holland's Pies (as a customer-recognisable brand) and 2 Sisters (which does meet NCORP, as a customer-invisible megacorp). Andy Dingley (talk) 18:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't support a merge to the parent company, as that doesn't include decades of 19th century history, which I'm trying to source now; also got a source of celebrity endorses including Peter Kay and Mark and Lard (no surprises for those three, really, is there?) "There is already a good place for the listing of individual varieties, which is the firm's web site." I've tried using that argument to get rid of articles that are just pointless Pokemon-style cruft, and it doesn't work. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  19:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * HRH Prince Charles endorsed my nans Pasties, but that hasn't made them notable. (not sure about the pie ---> pokemon thing). Dysklyver  19:38, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Speaking of Kernow, this AfD does strike me as being similar to Articles for deletion/Kelly's of Cornwall. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  19:41, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The pasties endorsed by his royal highness got deleted... Dysklyver  19:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep few companies get particularly notable coverage outside of food magazines, fanzines etc unless they are screwing up, and Holland's are one of those fine examples of a company famous for doing exactly what it says on their foil trays. I think, prior to their takeover, they would have been an obviously distinct historic brand. Reducing the article post takeover as a merge action for a previously unknown parent seems therefore a bit odd (their distinction doesn't end because they are subsumed). Seems a carbon copy of Hovis and dozens of other company brands. Koncorde (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak delete There are lots of sources, but many either (a) verge on being press releases or (b) often come from the same source -- the local newspaper, the Lancashire Telegraph, which has a highly local audience. This is a toughie! <sup style="color:#093">My name is <small style="color:#4000FF">not <sup style="color:#093">dave (talk/contribs) 07:56, 15 October 2017 (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.