Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Happy Egg 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. For so few participants, this was a complex call. There were, by handcount and including the nom, three !votes for delete and two !votes for keep which would normally be No Consensus. However, one keep !vote was barely more than a WP:VAGUEWAVE and the second keep subsequently said the article should be renamed Noble Foods and become an article about the parent company instead. Since that editor's !vote, a second editor has in fact created a standalone Noble Foods article. The closer, therefore, has to follow the logic of the first editor's argument to determine what to do in such a circumstance which — by my read — would indicate that they would have wanted to see the article deleted if a Noble Foods article existed at the time of their original !vote. And, since that situation has now come to pass, it appears there is a consensus for delete. Chetsford (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Happy Egg Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Wiki-Ad for an egg company has been peppered with non-RS to create the appearance of adequate referencing. A detailed analysis, however, shows it's sourced entirely to trade journals and passing mentions on the websites of industry associations. Three RS (the Wall Street Journal, HuffPo, and Guardian) contain mentions of the most incidental variety. The only substantial coverage is from the Daily Mail which is consensus non-RS. A thorough BEFORE search finds just more of the same (though frustrated slightly by the fact there appears to be an identically named, but different, company). Wolfson5 (talk) 07:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Wolfson5 (talk) 07:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Quite a well known company, I think the sources add up to a weak keep, the article is a little advert'ish, but I feel this is fine on wikipedia, I see no reason to delete this. Govvy (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This may or may not be a well known company, however, NCORP establishes specific guidelines for notability which includes a level of referencing that this article doesn't have, nor seems to be available to it. Our personal awareness of the company is not sufficient for notability (otherwise I'd make an article for Couesnon tubas). BIG BURLEY 23:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @Burley22: I think you need to be more specific on what is failing WP:NCORP, because when I did WP:BEFORE I saw articles on google from, The Times, The Independent, Guardian, Farmers magazines, in fact there are rather a lot of articles regarding a number of different issues that haven't even been mentioned on the article. I am pretty sure this should be a keep article. Govvy (talk) 11:10, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw articles on google from - I can't speak for what Burley22 did or did not find, however, WP:GOOGLEHITS is generally not a valid argument in an AfD. In my WP:BEFORE I saw these and, as I said in the nomination, wasn't convinced they amounted to WP:SIGCOV. Wolfson5 (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Wolfson5: I have been wondering if this article should be renamed to Noble Foods, at the moment, it's just about it's subsidiary. There are a number of articles like the Sunay Times, The Independent, which are involved with this company I think the article needs a rebuild. Govvy (talk) 22:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a possibility. I'm not sure I'd agree with it as the coverage of Noble Foods seems limited to either trade publications, which usually don't contribute to notability, or incidental mentions in larger reliable sources. These are essentially the same problems that plague the subsidiary. The articles you cite about Noble, for instance, basically consist of company spokespeople being quoted and - beyond that - the articles cover different companies entirely. But it's probably on the edge. In any case, could you thread your comments instead of starting a new thread each time you reply? You can find out more about threading comments here: WP:THREAD. Starting a new thread is a courtesy to other editors that keeps the conversation readable and is fairly easy to do with the use of a colon symbol at the start of each comment. Thanks. Wolfson5 (talk) 01:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noble Foods was formed in 2006 when Deans Foods and Stonegate merged; Stonegate was sold in 2008; Although Noble isn't a well known name, at least two of its brands are (The Happy Egg Company, and Gü which was bought by Noble in 2010).[1][2][3] Peter James (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair enough. With those references I took the liberty of creating Noble Foods. I'm still unconvinced this article merits retention, though, as I'm still only seeing purely passing mentions of it. Wolfson5 (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Clearly notable. Splinemath (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The test is not merely for "independent sources" or whether the references are published in "respectable" publications. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". Also, "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of references meet the criteria, most rely extensively on information attributable to company sources and others are mentions in passing. HighKing⁺⁺ 22:39, 30 January 2020 (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.