Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pat the Baker


 * 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. Legoktm (talk) 04:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Pat the Baker

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:NCORP, specifically WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND, WP:SIRS Refs are PR, routine coverage profile and event listings.  scope_creep Talk  08:18, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Ireland.   Madeline  ( part of me ) 12:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. As part of a WP:BEFORE I found and added some additional supporting refs. And verified the existing ones to confirm that they verified the text. While I haven't added to the article (as they are less than authoritative "listicle" type stuff) some coverage of the company's more notable advertising campaigns ("Iconic Irish TV ads" "9 best Irish TV adverts"). While much of this wouldn't add-up to a "keep" on its own, I note that the Dictionary of Irish Biography has an entry on the company's founder (which contains substantial, independent, non-trivial coverage on the company). While this coverage likely meets WP:ANYBIO ("person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary"), to the extent that the company's founder could sustain a standalone biographical article, this wouldn't seem to be the best course. In short, it seems to me that the article should be kept. Or, failing that, much of the moved (and a redirect left) to an article on the founder (who seems to meet WP:ANYBIO). Guliolopez (talk) 13:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think your a bit confused. Your right, Pat the baker himself is automatically notable as he has a entry into the "Dictionary of Irish Biography". But this is a company article however, not a WP:BLP. It is a completely different animal and still fails WP:NCORP. It is brochure, article advertising this company on Wikipedia and it breaks the Terms of USE. It is a classic advert, that fails WP:NCORP.   scope_creep Talk  14:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi. And thanks for the ping. To confirm, however, I am not confused. I have been contributing to the project for 17 years and understand the difference between a BIO and a CORP article. I know what I am proposing. And why. If I didn't perhaps articulate my reasoning fully, I will now. My point is that, while there is possibly an argument for deleting the CORP article ("Pat the Baker") on NCORP grounds, and creating a separate BIO article on the founder ("Pat Higgins (baker)") on WP:ANYBIO grounds, that would seem an unnecessarily awkward solution. As (1) the CORP title would likely be quickly recreated as a redirect to the BIO article and (2) the BIO article would deal substantively with the CORP topic anyway. As does the source. I would also note that (a) the Dictionary of Irish Biography article is a reliable/independent source that covers the company (just as it does its founder), and hence contributes to CORPDEPTH, (b) the article is no longer "Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content" to the extent that WP:DEL applies (deletion is not cleanup), and (c) if an editor breaches the terms of use, then the action is taken against the editor. Not the article. ("The author is an ass" is not a WP:DEL-REASON. Much as I sometimes wish it was....). Mine remains a "keep" recommendation. Guliolopez (talk) 14:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course it is. I think possibly you've not spent a lot of time at Afd. BLP article and business articles are seperate. They're is no consensus that states because he is notable, that he is allowed to advertise his business on Wikipedia. Notibilty is not inherited. There is zero consensus for that. Being mentioned in the Dictionary of Irish Biography, which fails WP:SIRS for the business, doesn't warrant advertising either. Any biographical entry will mention a persons working life history. That doesn't make it notable either. You may find it a awkward solution but that what happens in this case. I never stated the author was an ass. I don't know where that comes from.    scope_creep Talk  17:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Comments Lets looks at the references:
 * Ref 1 'Unprecedented' demand for bread, according to Pat the Baker The managing director of Pat the Baker has said the demand for bread is unprecedented Fails WP:ORGIND
 * Ref 2 Pat Higgins, the original 'Pat the Baker', dies aged 84 This is an obit. Passing mention.
 * Ref 3 The DIB entry on Pat himself.
 * Ref 4 Our Story. WP:SPS source that fails WP:SIRS.
 * Ref 5 Obit]. Another Obit for pat.
 * Ref 6 https://www.farmersjournal.ie/pat-the-baker-buys-irish-pride-187111 Press-release. Fails WP:SIRS
 * Ref 7 Majority of Irish Pride sold to Pat the Baker Press-release.
 * Ref 8 Competition and Consumer Protection Commission Fails WP:ORGIND
 * Ref 9 Report shows that bakery Irish Pride could have been saved On the sale of Irish Pride. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
 * Ref 10 Pat The Baker has big bread beast Brennans in its sights Merger news. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH
 * Ref 11 Irish Pride ‘sold’ to Pat the Baker Fails WP:CORPDEPTH of the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business
 * Ref 12 Pat the Baker Longford Marathon is the ‘friendliest marathon in the country’ Press-release.


 * Its is more of the same. While Pat himself is notable, the business is not. It is all routine coverage.   scope_creep Talk  17:38, 23 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep - The company and the founder are both notable. Spleodrach (talk) 20:33, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - a household name throughout Ireland, and clearly notable - A l is o n  talk 23:04, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Raw keep votes are often ignored by the closing administrator when they don't discuss policy. Where is your evidence that the business is notable? Currently its products, its locations, its operations are all advertised and all is explicity forbidden by WP:NCORP. Why is the business notable, in light of the crap references that have been described above.   scope_creep Talk  08:28, 24 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete Most of what I can see online regarding the company is 1. About the founder, or 2. A press release or other publicity. Routine press releases are trivial coverage, and just because the founder is notable doesn't mean the company is. FrederalBacon (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Guliolopez. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 10:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * So three Irish folk who have completely ignored policy.   scope_creep Talk  12:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep I have not yet had an opportunity to dig up more references but this book has a case study on marketing at the company. There are a number of case studies from PhD students too - some editors allow these for notability, I'd prefer to find something else. Damien Mulley has a scathing analysis of a marketing campaign by the company on Bebo here. The company was also involved in a strike/lock-out in 1993 which (indirectly) led to the law on union rights in Ireland being changed in 1998. There's also a detailed case study in a publication produced by Skillnets entitled "Measuring the Impact of Training and Development in the Workplace" (page 76) here. Overall, I think this one sneaks it.  HighKing++ 20:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That might do it. A couple of reports would do it.   scope_creep Talk  21:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep. Passes WP:NCORP per HighKing.4meter4 (talk) 03:59, 7 October 2022 (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.