Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magnolia Bread Company

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 delete. WP:BITE concerns are not a policy based reason for keeping an article. That's something that needs to be dealt with the nominator. Secret ^account 23:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Magnolia Bread Company

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication given of notability or significance of this small bakery. Speedy deletion has been attempted by me and another user but the tag has been removed by a third party, citing potential improvement, but no indication of such improvement(or the potential for improvement) has yet been given, or any other reason this small business merits inclusion. 331dot (talk) 14:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 14:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. This article was inappropriately tagged for speedy deletion while its creator, a new editor, had barely begun to work on it, and was still attempting to write it. At best, this kind of "patrolling" violates WP:BITE, drives away potentially valuable contributors, and does little or nothing to improve wikipedia. That blitz-tagging the article with boilerplate has, for the moment, driven a good faith contributor away should not be a rationale for deletion, nor is it in any way evidence that no "potential for improvement" exists. I see no reason to encourage bad editing by would-be "patrollers" who seem more interested in bulking up deletion scalp counts by whacking articles-in-progress. At worst, this could be moved to draftspace with appropriate encouragement for its author, but better to give them a decent opportunity to return and complete their work. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in "bulking up deletion scalp counts" (please assume good faith); I am interested in articles being referenced(even if not done in the correct technical manner) and in some indication as to why a small bakery merits inclusion in a global encyclopedia. I'm still waiting to hear the answer to that. If the editor had contested the deletion I would have been happy to explain things to them and if they had indicated they were still working, I also would have been happy to work with them on that. I have no nefarious motives- though I'm unsure why I'm being picked on when this type of thing happens hundreds of times a day. 331dot (talk) 15:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop pretending to be a victim. After even a cursory reviewing of your "deletion logs", which seem to be be much, much longer than your article creation or improvement logs would be, it is evident that you have shown little or no interest in allowing new editors a reasonable opportunity to write articles, and do little or nothing to help or encourage them. You tagged this article while it was still being written, barely one minute after the creator's previous edit. I've seen fifteen minutes suggested as the minimum interval to allow for further editing (which strikes me as absurdly inadequate), but allowing only one minute is stupid and inconsiderate.

And this is hardly an isolated occurrence. From your deletion logs:

Americare [1] Nov 18, speedied one minute after a new editor's first edit. After that, within an hour, you escalated to an AFD, which you had to withdraw shortly thereafter because you hadn't made the minimal effort called for by WP:BEFORE.
Gods of Ancient Egypt [2] Sept 25 - another one-minute rush-tag
Wizards Futbol Club [3] Just 8 minutes after a new editor began work on their second article, and their contribution history made it plain that were unlike;y to stop with this edit
HWD Hospital Radio [4] July 31 Less than one minute after a new editor began writing, and it appeared from the article text that they had inadvertently posted before they had even completed their initial effort. Doing something like this and making no effort to meaningfully communicate with a good faith, constructive editor is virtually inexcusable bad behavior.
Hamish madden [5] Nov 27 Blitz-tagged only five minutes after the creator had established their account (and, obviously, less than that since their one and only edit). The Gcached copy shows it likely that this new editor had started their userpage in mainspace, a common error that a competent, responsible editor would have responded to by moving the page into userspace and leaving an appropriate encouraging note. You, however, have apparently driven this editor away.
Jamm Radio [6] Blitz-tagged only four minutes after the article creator established their account. Gcache shows this article deals with a college radio station, and likely at worst should have been redirected rather than summarily deleted. Once again, a good faith new editor with constructive intent gets slapped in the face by 331dot when thedy should have been encouraged.
Kevin Wacasey [7] Blitz-tagged only two minutes after article creation, yet again targeting the first effort from a new editor without giving them a decent opportunity to write their first article.

This is horrendous, nonconstructive editing that does little or nothing to improve Wikipedia. Prowling around thed new articles and pouncing on articles from new editors before they've even finished their first effort violates WP:BITE and drives potentially valuable contributors away. It should be obvious that the results, on balance, are not appropriately constructive. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not this big monster you seem to be making me out to be, and I'm not sure what I did to deserve your ire and condemnation instead of some friendly advice- but I guess assume good faith is out the window here. I still feel like I'm learning too despite having been here a little while- I don't have your eight year edit history here to know how to read the tea leaves and divine the intention of other editors. I didn't realize this was the "Analyze and condemn 331dot's edit activity and motives" page, but I don't think it should be. If you wish to further discuss how I edit, since you seem to have the time to analyze my edit history, you know where to find my talk page. Do you have anything to add about the merits of an article on a small bakery with no indication of its notability or significance? 331dot (talk) 23:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Best I can find is this, which is barely better than a namedrop. There are apparently unrelated companies of this name in Alabama and Georgia, but they don't seem to meet WP:CORP either. Article as it stands is an A7, and (having seen the edit warring over the tag) I was going to speedy it myself after another few hours. Delete. —Cryptic 15:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An unreferenced article making to real claim to notability. Plainly a firm going about its business, but multiple searches (Highbeam, Questia, Google) are turning up nothing to indicate that the firm is of encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 08:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Biting newbies so strongly and immediately is awful...the new editor had started the article 5 minutes ago and was editing it. Who knows what news clippings and sources the person might have been able to produce, given some encouragement and inquiry, rather than Speedy Deletion tagging and this AFD.

Also, I added an independent reliable source to the article, in form of Youtube video coverage by a news source "Chesapeake Taste". Chesapeake Taste is itself described here. Perhaps there is other news coverage. Keep and let it be developed, though damage has been done. --do ncr am 15:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I found coverage in Chestertown Spy, and added that too. What searching was done wp:BEFORE? --do ncr am 15:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: There was no intention to "bite" strongly or otherwise- just to inquire about the notability of this company- though I appreciate you being nicer about it that the other user. I'm still figuring out how to do things here. Regarding the source, I don't see what the video indicates as notable about this company. 331dot (talk) 14:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added more, too. The video appears to have been published at bottom of this Chesapeake Inspired news article, too. The video is coverage substantially about the topic of the Magnolia Bread Company. And so are other articles. It is soft coverage, not exactly breaking news, but it is coverage and i am thinking that the topic meets wikipedia notability. I appreciate your reply 331dot, but I do think it unfortunate that the editor has probably been driven away, rather than coaxed to provide sources that they may well have available that we don't find so easily in quick internet searching. --do ncr am 15:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.