Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World's Finest Chocolate


 * 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) → B  music  ian  00:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

World's Finest Chocolate

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

The article is nothing more than advertising. There are no reliable sources provided, and any sources that were added were primary or not focused on the subject. Further, an extensive search on Google and industry publications provided little or no reliable sources that establish notability of the company.–Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 00:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep but improve. Accordiang to manta, the company was founded in 1922 and has 500 employees.  It wasn't very difficult for me to find reliable sources such as this one, so this company definitely meets Wikipedia's corporate notability standard. NJ Wine (talk) 01:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - None of those sources have the required significant depth of coverage needed to confer presumption of notability; most consist solely of passing mention of the company, e.g. Saint Mary's started its annual fund raiser today featuring candy bars made by World's Finest Chocolates... Furthermore, the provided search only had four sources from the search that mentioned the company - one press release, two of the fundraiser notices and one from the Hudson murder trial that featured an interview with a juror that worked for the company. The rest of the links in the search were sites that happened to have the three key words on the same page. The passing mention and routine coverage types of sources only establish verifiability of the subject, not notability, as required in WP:Notability. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Evidently notable - see Chocolate Fads, Folklore & Fantasies, for example. Warden (talk) 08:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - The topic passes WP:GNG:
 * ISBN 1593924496
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 10:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 10:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 10:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 10:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 10:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 10:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 10:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Despite the evident commercial razzmatazz, the company is notable. Have defluffed the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I will quote what I said during the WP:PROD in April: the company is somewhat notable--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC) both for having produced the world's largest chocolate bar (http://columbiachronicle.com/worlds-finest-chocolate-creates-worlds-largest-chocolate-bar/) and for being the fundraising candy bar (http://www.usafundraising.com/candy-fundraisers/world-s-finest-chocolate-fundraiser).
 * Keep. The evidence of "notability" here is overwhelming.   coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  18:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: Also per this 1972 article. SL93 (talk) 19:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - extraordinarily well-known fundraiser for schools, including my own, if you care. Bearian (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article has been dramatically improved since its deletion nomination. There seems to be reasonable coverage in reliable sources, sufficient to meet WP:GNG. P. D. Cook  Talk to me! 20:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - the article is improved since nominated for deletion and now obviously notable  →TSU tp* 21:59, 26 May 2012 (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.