Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of top-selling candy brands


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 23:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

List of top-selling candy brands

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

arbitrary and unsubstantiated Rathfelder (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * STRONG KEEP Article clearly meets criteria under WP:NOR and WP:PRIMARY. This seems like a vindictive attack by a candy hater 161.113.20.135 (talk) 19:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - the candy hater comment made me laugh, but IP above is right, this list is useful, and could use expansion to include more information.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - This list is limited to the year 2007. What is the purpose? — Maile  (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that the 2007 statistics on sales are just that, statistics. They could be updated at any time someone has a newer source.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a WP:SPLIT from Candy, to make it easier to WP:PRESERVE this information without overwhelming the main article. I'm not sure why the nominator calls it "arbitrary" (sales are objective) or "unsubstantiated" (there are multiple sources cited in the article).  If anyone wants to update it, then feel free.  This article is slightly newer.  One thing that could be made clearer is that this list is the top seller within each named country, not the top seller across the entire globe.  Snickers isn't the #1 candy in any country, but globally, being #2 or #3 in several markets means that it outsells many favorites.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  00:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – Meets WP:LISTN. Source examples include:, , , . North America1000 02:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete (see below) - If this were somehow a list of best selling candy brands of all time, I would be supporting this, but it's an WP:INDISCRIMINATE hodgepodge based on sources that use different kinds of data from different dates, and cites listicles rather than the data itself (so omits what the listicles omit). We have a combination of the number one candy in each of 25 countries and US sales data put together in the same table. Nowhere in sight is an actual list of top-selling candy brands. Best case scenario would be either reproducing a particular dataset or two and update it every year, but I imagine there are some copyright concerns in doing that (I'm not sure). As soon as we try to draw from more than one source, because the industry research is performed at different times with different scope, we start to form a list that doesn't belong together or have to get into crazy column expansion. The 2008-2009 sales of M&Ms globally doesn't belong with 2007 global sales of Cadbury, and 2008 sales of Reese's in the US alone. Again, there's a valid argument for LISTN, just as there would be for almost any "top selling ____" topic, but right now because of what this list purports vs. what it is, it's not just incomplete, it's misinformation. And it's not clear to me it's sustainable without just copying datasets. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 15:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Why do you believe that the sales data for the top-selling candy in (for example) Brazil is the amount of sales in the US, rather than the amount of sales in Brazil (but converted to USD)? If the sales figures were all about the total sales in the US, rather than the country in question, then why does Cadbury's Dairy Milk have different dollar figures for every entry?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. I don't believe that sales in Brazil is the amount of sales in the US (?). The point is that it's a hodgepodge of data. It purports to be a list of top selling candy, but some of the data is "top selling in brazil" with the figures for sales in brazil, some of the data is "top selling in the US" with figures for sales for the US, some data is "top selling in the world" with figures for sales in the world... from different points in time, and presented in the same table as though we're comparing apples and apples. It looks to be taken somewhat arbitrarily from the cited listicles and primary sources. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 21:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you give me a specific example, in the table, in the column for the sales figures (not the description), of total sales for the whole world? I wrote most of that table originally, and all countries, all candy bars, and all dollar-sales figures listed are for the single country in question, from the same year, and from the same source.  I haven't watched the page closely, so things may have changed, but I don't see anything that justifies your complaint.  The line about Brazil, for example, tells you the top-selling candy bar in Brazil alone, with the sales figures in Brazil alone.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   11:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

It's clear from the discussion above that the article is at best unclear. What I said it was arbitrary, I meant: Why these particular countries? Why base the list on 2007? - just because of the Bloomberg article? Where does this data come from? It doesn't appear that the references really support most of the assertions.Rathfelder (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Why these countries? Because those are the countries that the source included.
 * Why 2007? Because that is the year that the source included.
 * Where does this data come from? From the cited reliable source.  (Officially, we don't care where the reliable source got its data; editors are required to cite sources, but reliable sources are not.)
 * Can you give an exact example of a fact in the table that is not supported by the sources? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The only real source seems to be the Bloomberg Businessweek article. That says it is based on a Euromonitor survey, but we aren't told anything about it, but it is clear that it is nearly 10 years old.  The other references are mostly links to the manufacturers. If this article is to deliver what it claims to deliver it needs updating and expanding. Otherwise it should be called List of top-selling candy brands in 25 countries in 2007.Rathfelder (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that it would be lovely to have it updated and expanded. However, "contains information from nine years ago" is not actually a criterion for deletion.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So you're saying you basically took a single source and reproduced it to make a Wikipedia article? I was basing what I was saying on the sources cited, but if you're saying only one of the sources is actually responsible for the list, that's what I was saying re: "best case scenario" (which is not to say a good scenario). Do you not see an issue with, effectively, copy/pasting the content of a single listicle to form a Wikipedia article? &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 15:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * When I wrote worked on the original version of the table, the information was part of a larger article. The table is only a separate page now because it was WP:SPLIT (for the usual reasons given in SPLIT, e.g., that the amount of space it consumed was tending to place undue emphasis on sales figures).
 * I see no problem with creating a single table of statistics from a single source, particularly if the goal is to avoid the "WP:INDISCRIMINATE hodgepodge based on sources that use different kinds of data from different dates" (emphasis in your original) that you erroneously claimed it to be. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I see no problem with creating a single table of statistics from a single source - The problem is you haven't created a single table of statistics from the actual source of those statistics. Someone else curated and published a particular subset of that data and it's that which has been copied to make this article. Per my understanding of data and copyright, that's a violation. I'll ping in case she's available to lend her expertise. Less ambiguously -- and more straightforward to fix -- while you've expanded on the wording in some cases, there are also a few instances of copied descriptions that have nothing to do with the data. E.g.
 * "Trident is not only the No. 1 candy in Brazil, it is also the No. 1 brand of chewing gum in the world"
 * vs.
 * "Trident, made by Cadbury, is not only the No. 1 candy in Brazil, it is also the No. 1 brand of chewing gum in the world." &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 19:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And here I am accidentally taking unfair credit for work that someone else did. The material was added original by someone else, promptly converted to table formatting by another editor, and cleaned up a bit later by me.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi. :) If I'm understanding this situation correctly, the source lists the top X selling candy bars by annual sales. The data is not creative - it's straightforward sales figures. (Not estimates, but pure accounting.) If that's true, and the selection is not creative - it's the top sellers, not the best tasting or anything like that - I don't believe that there are copyright issues with using that data in the U.S., as sweat of the brow is not protected here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Got it. Thanks for this explanation.
 * It seems I'm wrong about the copyright issue. Nonetheless, a list based almost entirely on a single source is not a good list and what we have here is still a confusing mess. Still, with some extraordinarily weak possibilities it can be salvaged rather than WP:TNT it, and for lack of a copyright issue, I've somewhat reluctantly struck my delete !vote. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 19:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The UK, Russia and the USA appear twice in the table. I think that reinforces my complaint that this is an arbitrary list. There is a perfectly good article List of candies. What does this add to it?Rathfelder (talk) 14:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This is because each candy brand has its own separate entry in the list. This actually serves to make the list less arbitrary. North America1000 16:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable topic, and deletion is not cleanup. SST  flyer  17:31, 27 March 2016 (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.