Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cloverhill Bakery

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. Splash 00:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cloverhill Bakery

Bakeries do not deserve articles on Wikipedia unless truely extraordinary. Not notable. Scimitar parley 18:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Vote To Keep A bakery in Chicago, Illinois. What about Hostess? Bakery or whatever should stay. --Maoririder 18:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't quite get your point Maoririder. Is Bob's Five and Dime equal to Wal-Mart? It isn't the fact that it's a bakery that is the problem, but that it's a non-notable bakery. Perhaps I misunderstand you, though. --Bayyoc 18:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete This is exactly the sort of thing Maoririder has been warned about in the past: creating one sentence stubs that are completely useless. As far as Hostess is concerned, it's an international corporation with revenues in the millions of dollars. You can write the Cloverhill article when they can say the same. -Soltak 18:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
By the way, "It is a bakery in Chicago, Illinois. It makes pasteries [sic]." is a redundent statement. That's generally what bakeries do. -Soltak 18:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable. JDoorjam 19:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable, unlikely to expand. DES (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Change my vote to Abstain after the rewrite. DES (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; non-notable. Jaxl 19:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC) Abstain after expansion. Jaxl 22:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

*Delete, nn, no content. Heaven knows I've tried to help this user. He has a temporary block which will hopefully cool his jets for a bit. - Lucky 6.9 20:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

    • Comment: I just hit the website. Looks like these guys are major players in vending machine snacks in the Midwest. State-of-the-art all the way from what I can see. I'll have a go at it, but their history section was a bit limited. - Lucky 6.9 20:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, it isn't much...but it's now a real, live stub. Changing to keep current revision. - Lucky 6.9 21:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I'll change my vote to Abstain, but I'm not convinced that it's such a major player. Did you come to that conclusion from their website, or a third party website? --Bayyoc 21:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Admittedly, what little info there was came from the website. The photos of the facility were certainly impressive. - Lucky 6.9 21:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Vote changed to Abstain following Lucky's additions. I'm not entirely convinced of their importance, but given the changes to the article I don't feel comfortable voting to delete. -Soltak 21:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep nice expansion. Kappa 21:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. 24 at 21:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep regional consumer product company. DS1953 23:47, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Lucky's rewrite. Given the original state of the article its not surprising it was nominated though. Capitalistroadster 00:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep now, but articles shouldn't start off this badly. This whole VfD could have been avoided if the stub-creator had just put in a little more effort and written two complete sentences on the subject! ike9898 17:01, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but damnit why don't people who put these things in try just a little harder at the start? How difficult is it to describe... oh, never mind. Thanks, Lucky. --Mothperson cocoon 00:49, 4 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.