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 no consensus. Sandstein 17:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kilwins[edit]

Kilwins (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)

Fails WP:NCORP John from Idegon (talk) 00:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 00:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 00:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 00:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 00:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Emmet County, Michigan#Economy, where a brief description of Kilwins is mentioned with the same sources and purpose Redditaddict69 (talk) 03:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Redditaddict69[reply]

• Keep I have updated the article with more secondary sources and will continue to do so. I don't think that a merge makes sense for a nationwide chain. Teemu08 (talk) 13:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No indications of notability, references fail the criteria for notability and are not intellectually independent failing WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this franchise has 120 locations, and almost every new store opening gets a mention in local press. There are also sources with general coverage of the company, a few of which I just added. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Routine announcements of store openings do not speak to notability, and that is virtually all the sources that have been added since nominations. The "Forbes" bit at least speaks to the chain as a whole, but it is still not discussion in detail. Pop polls like that are not worth much. John from Idegon (talk) 06:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Back in November 2017 we had a similar discussion for Steak Escape that was closed as no consensus. [[1]] I know WP:OTHERSTUFF, but they have a similar number of locations - about 100 locations - and sourcing isn't much better, but they are also international. I think notability for franchises has to be judged differently than if was just a single company operating from a headquarters and with maybe a handful of branch offices. Because of the type of business this is, a candy store, the activity is at the franchise level, not the HQ, which is why most of the coverage is local. Perhaps it would be good to formulate some threshold to help us with these borderline ones - maybe having a minimum number of locations? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• That's an argument that is more appropriate for the Talk page at WP:NCORP. Currently, NCORP says nothing about creating an exception for franchises and for me, I don't believe an exception is warranted. If this chain was truly notable, it would have at least two references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. It doesn't. The routine store announcements fail the criteria. Have you been able to find any other references that might possible meet the criteria? HighKing⁺⁺ 09:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, in my opinion (which obliquely supports what you are saying), Steak Escape is not a good example as it would not pass AfD now, especially since NCORP has been updated. None of the references are intellectually independent and fail WP:ORGIND. So the argument that we should allow Kilwins because Steak Escape was a "No Consensus" last November doesn't make sense since neither meet the criteria for articles. If your argument is for exception in NCORP for franchises, you need to get community consensus for such a change first before applying to articles. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• To contrast against Steak Escape, though, you don't see a full-page story in regional newspapers when they open a new franchise. There is no doubt that these papers are writing somewhat softball articles, but its impossible to say that there is some sort of financial connection between the two entities. There was a consensus as recently as April that individual notability guidelines shouldn't trump GNG guidelines. Teemu08 (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• That's always been the case. All NCORP does as a guideline is assist in interpreting GNG in the context of companies. And the rules of how to interpret "independent" are very clear. Because companies and organizations have PR and marketing departments, there must be two references that meet the requirements for establishing notability. This article doesn't even have one. If you think it does, which ones do you believe meet the criteria? HighKing⁺⁺ 20:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Any of the articles in any of the newspapers or books cited in this article qualify as independent. None disclose any relationship with the organization, and it is pure speculation to state otherwise. Teemu08 (talk) 15:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you Teemu08 for the clarification. Your position, that any/all of the articles in the newspapers and books cited in the article qualify as independent, is incorrect and (in my opinion) based on an incorrect interpretation of "independent". It does not mean that there is a relationship between the organization and the publisher. Please read WP:NCORP (the applicable guidelines for organizations/companies) which clarifies that "independent" means "intellectually independent". For example, this reference from richmond.com is based on a company announcement (therefore based on a PRIMARY source), relies on an interview with the Poh's (a connected source) and has no intellectually-independent opinion or analsys. The reference is not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND. Moving to another, this reference from Miami New Times (is an advertorial) relies on interviews with the store owner and employees, etc, etc, fails WP:ORGIND and is not "intellectually independent". You get the drift. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, your argument gives me a better understanding of where you are coming from with this. However, unless I am missing something, I still disagree that those articles are in violation of the dependent coverage clause of N:CORP. From my interpretation, your view requires some reading-between-the-lines on what constitutes "independent". There is no mention in N:CORP about any prohibition on a piece that includes input from the subject in question. You may be right that such pieces shouldn't qualify, but I can only operate within what is written in the guidelines. Teemu08 (talk) 13:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Teemu08, glad you've got a better understanding. A couple of very quick points. When evaluating a reference to see if it meets the criteria for establishing notability, there are a number of factors. Both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND sections are very helpful in assisting editors in evaluating sources. CORPDEPTH provides a list of trivial coverage as well as examples of substantial coverage. None of the examples you have provided can be regarded as substantial coverage. More appropriately, ORGIND lists examples of independent sources and states 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 the references in the article include original and independent opinion/analysis/investigation/etc. This is the primary reason why those references are not considered to be independent and why they fail to meet the criteria for establishing notability. If you feel I have incorrectly reached this conclusion, please point out the content within these articles that I may have overlooked. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• HighKing I would counter with the unsolicited review in the Palm Beach Post (McMillan)--I don't see anything in that review that would violate the product reviews section of NCORP. I also chose to cite Harris & Lyon because their guide gave more than just a trivial mention of Kilwins. The Traverse City Record Eagle, while admittedly pushing the definition of "regional" a bit, does not include company output. Also, I don't have access to this article, but if anyone does, the Philadelphia Business Journal might have a nice clinical approach to the company. Teemu08 (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Teemu08, I think you might be misinterpreting NCORP wrt product reviews. NCORP guidelines Thelp determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services, is a valid subject for a separate Wikipedia article dedicated solely to that organization, product, or service. The guidelines are not to be interpreted to mean that if a company's product is reviewed and the review article meets the criteria for establishing notability, then the article can also be used as an indication of the notability of the company. Notability is not inherited. A product review can be used to determine whether the product is notable but unless the review also contains significant coverage of the company, it cannot be used to establish notability of the company. Also, please bear in mind that 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 the references you have provided meet the requirement for "independent content". Finally, the Philadelphia Business Journal" article is also not intellectually independent and relies extensively on quotations from persons connected with Kilwins/Simpson family and does not provide and independent/original opinion/analysis/etc. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I see enough coverage. Redditaddict69's suggested redirect is not at all reasonable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Hi power~enwiki, can you point to a reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability? None of the references I have found or in the article or elsewhere are either not intellectually independent or they've nothing in-depth about the company. Thank you. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep now because Kilwins is expanding to a dozen or so new locations over the next year. It is a nationwide chain at this point and growing rapidly. Several people have been expanding the article to make it more relevant, too. If deleted, it will eventually be recreated because more people will know about it. Redditaddict69 (talk) 07:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Emmet County, Michigan#Economy where the subject is already mentioned. Does not meet WP:NCORP; just a private company going about its business and looking for franchisees. Not independently notable, with advertorial undertones. A brief mention in the target article is sufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment should this discussion be closed by now? Redditaddict69 (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete; consider userfying. Redditaddict69's point is well-taken; a rapidly-growing franchise will probably attract additional coverage (if grows too fast and fails, that too will attract coverage). I'm forced to agree that the current sources don't get the company over the NCORP bar. That's a shame; they have pretty good ice cream. Mackensen (talk) 11:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this is still open? I'm still a keep vote. There's absolutely no reason to redirect a company with 125 franchises across the US to a page about the county their headquarters are located in. The references are local newspaper coverage of their stores (which is local but independent; there's nothing excluding these in WP:CORPDEPTH), travel guides (some of which look like paid placement), and directories of franchise businesses (there's also stuff like this case study which obviously isn't independent). In my view, the "local" coverage is sufficient here. I'm not sure what type of reference would satisfy the delete voters, and I don't think it's reasonable to claim this type of business is never notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Bottom line is that if this company was truly notable today, we'd have more than just announcements in local newspapers. We'd at least have something that meets the criteria for NCORP (in case you're wondering, that's something that might change someone's mind from Delete to Keep). Our guidelines might not be perfect but they've been honed over years and years to come up with the *minimum* criteria for establishing notability, so I'm not inclined to be swayed by arguments that ask to put those guidelines aside. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That lack of sources HK speaks of dooms us to having a PR puff piece. Look at all the factual information missing. There is 0 info on how the company supplies the stores. There is no information on how the stores are sited. There is no information on who owns the real estate. This is the factual information required to write an article about a food franchise operation. Further, if you look closely at all the bits on openings, you can clearly see the language similarities. The odds of professional wordsmiths in many disparite locations choosing such similar language are infinitely small, indicating that these stories were written off boilerplate press releases. There are virtually no independent sources. John from Idegon (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article mentions that the ice cream is produced at their main facility but that other confectioneries are made on site. It also mentions that the company specifically targets resort areas (they specifically target areas with high foot traffic but that seemed redundant). I could add specifics about the actual financial obligations for opening a location since we have good RS's on it, but I thought that it struck the wrong tone for an encyclopedic article. Teemu08 (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Really? What reliable independent source do you have for that information? John from Idegon (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Redditaddict69 and power~enwiki. A company with a large franchise, deletion is pointless. Hzh (talk) 22:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any links to references that meet the criteria for establishing notability? Without references, keeping is pointless. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 120 locations in 23 states is hardly a trivial size. The sources given in the article are of sufficient notability per WP:CORPDEPTH. Absence of certain information is not in and of itself a reason to delete if sufficient notability is established. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • CORPDEPTH doesn't require the sources to be of "sufficient notability" and the references in the article that might pass CORPDEPTH then fail ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:09, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Since the comment chain up above with HighKing is rather long I will try to lay out my argument as cogently as I can and then leave it in the hands of the XFD folks. The crux of the dispute is what defines "independent" with regards to the notability criteria. NCORP, fortunately, has a section on this and we can compare it against the article. We are asked to consider the independence of the author and content. The articles given as examples were written by well-established sources (regional newspapers mostly) who have no demonstable financial link to the company. There is no reason to believe that any of the authors or publications are in any way stakeholders in the company, and the success or failure of the company has no bearing on the publication. The subsequent section outlining examples of dependent coverage doesn't give us much reason to doubt notability either: the articles clearly are not written by the company in any form and there is no reason to believe that these particular articles were paid for in otherwise reliably independent sources. In my opinion, the counter-arugment to its notability requries such a specific and strict view of NCORP that it runs afoul of WP:BURO. I don't agree that input from a shareholder invalidates a source as otherwise independent, and I do not agree that there is sufficient grounds to say NCORP as currently written prohibits these sources without a significant degree of interpretation. Teemu08 (talk) 20:54, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Teemu08, I think you've done a pretty good job at justifying the references in terms of "functional independence" (then again, just about all references are good here) but you have not addressed "intellectual independent" at all. NCORP provides this summary: 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. So, if you think there's a reference or two that is intellectually independent and meets the criteria for establishing notability and that consensus will support your reasoning why, then please post a link here with your reasoning. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:09, 11 August 2018 (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.