Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Famous Amos
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. — CharlotteWebb 04:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Famous Amos
A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [1]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 16:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep, very well known brand. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Useful adjunct to Wally Amos and I'm pretty sure it got mentioned in the History Channel America Eats series too. FrozenPurpleCube 16:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep, clearly notable company. Postdlf 16:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep, well-known brand. NawlinWiki 17:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep as a well-known brand of chocolate chip cookkies. For example, this recent news article. -- Whpq 17:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as above. Gazpacho 18:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- "Clearly notable"? Clear to whom? The article cites no sources. How are Wikipedia readers in Malaysia to know that this is "clearly notable"? Please stop arguing that you personally know the brand, and cite sources. Sources are what we deal in here at Wikipedia, not personal testimony. Uncle G 18:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Uncle G, how do you feel about "Smith, Andrew F., ed. The Junk Food and Fast Food Encyclopedia." as a potential source? Not to mention Wally Amos is himself notable. [2]. So I think his major product at least deserves an article, if not a redirect. Plus like I said, I'm pretty sure that they were featured in the History Channel's American Eats series. FrozenPurpleCube 18:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'm happy if you cite multiple non-trivial sources about the subject from people independent of the manufacturer, and base your argument upon them. I'm ecstatic if you put them in the article, so that this article doesn't end up coming back to AFD in a year's time, as happens if sources aren't added to articles. (Remember the drinking games, where people had pile-on votes the first time the articles were nominated for deletion, but didn't actually put any sources in the articles, resulting in their coming back again to AFD months later? Citing sources stops such cycles. None of us wants articles on notable companies and products to come back to AFD repeatedly. Getting the argument right the first time around, so that people can in future say "Of course it's notable. Simply look at the references section of the article!", ensures that they don't. Pile-on, unsupported, "It's notable." votes just yields another AFD nomination months or years from now, when another editor, who may never have even heard of these products in xyr country, decides to challenge a whole load of unsourced articles.) Uncle G 18:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- I understand completely why you're harping on this, and I don't fault you one bit, but the difference between this and a drinking game is that no one would ever think for a second to AfD this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- We're here in the first place because someone not only thought that this article out to be deleted, xe actually went ahead and deleted it. There will be other people who think the same in the future. There will be editors who have never even heard of the product. Citing sources now allows us to say in the future "Just look at the cited sources, and you'll see that the WP:CORP criteria are satisfied.".
Citing sources also stops people from making the Argumentum Ad Biscuit, which they will do, now that all of these articles have been discussed. "Why do you editors delete our wonderful web site when you keep articles on individual brands of biscuits?" they will ask. I don't speak for anyone else, but I want to be able to to turn to them and ask "That brand of biscuit is documented at length in scholarly papers and in history books, which you can see cited in the references and further reading sections of the articles. Where are the papers and books about your web site?". Uncle G 20:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Good points, Uncle G, and I mostly agree with you about the need for references, but I will point out that the person who deleted all these pages has already said that they did not bother to check for sources (or talk pages, logs, etc.) but deleted the page because they thought it should be deleted, plain and simple, with no regard to cited sources. Turnstep 18:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- We're here in the first place because someone not only thought that this article out to be deleted, xe actually went ahead and deleted it. There will be other people who think the same in the future. There will be editors who have never even heard of the product. Citing sources now allows us to say in the future "Just look at the cited sources, and you'll see that the WP:CORP criteria are satisfied.".
- I'm sorry, but I'm simply not impressed you with making a connection between a drinking game and a multi-million dollar cookie business. That tends to put you even further towards arrogant and patronizing, which as I said earlier is the impression you're giving, instead of genuinely concerned and interested in the subject. I am honestly not inclined to point out sources for you, as it feels like I'm giving into bullying. Frankly, that it even got Speedy Deleted shows a problem with the process, not with the article. As I said under Arnotts, this is another example that should 'Never have gone there. FrozenPurpleCube 19:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- If you don't "want to give in" when people ask you repeatedly to cite sources, then Wikipedia won't be a comfortable place for you. Insisting upon sources is what we do here. My concern and interest lies in making a better encyclopaedia, which citing sources in articles does, and in preventing the pet articles of people who "are interested in the subject" coming to AFD in the first place, which citing sources also does. Uncle G 20:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- The problem is how you come across, which is not as someone who is genuinely interested in a better Wikpedia, but as someone who is dogmatic and narrow-minded. Especially in circumstances like this, which are clearly highlighting an exceptional problem. I'm sorry, but your multiple repetitions of the same post to various proposals on this subject are not in your favor. Me, I at least tried to individualize my responses. FrozenPurpleCube 20:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- If you don't "want to give in" when people ask you repeatedly to cite sources, then Wikipedia won't be a comfortable place for you. Insisting upon sources is what we do here. My concern and interest lies in making a better encyclopaedia, which citing sources in articles does, and in preventing the pet articles of people who "are interested in the subject" coming to AFD in the first place, which citing sources also does. Uncle G 20:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- I understand completely why you're harping on this, and I don't fault you one bit, but the difference between this and a drinking game is that no one would ever think for a second to AfD this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'm happy if you cite multiple non-trivial sources about the subject from people independent of the manufacturer, and base your argument upon them. I'm ecstatic if you put them in the article, so that this article doesn't end up coming back to AFD in a year's time, as happens if sources aren't added to articles. (Remember the drinking games, where people had pile-on votes the first time the articles were nominated for deletion, but didn't actually put any sources in the articles, resulting in their coming back again to AFD months later? Citing sources stops such cycles. None of us wants articles on notable companies and products to come back to AFD repeatedly. Getting the argument right the first time around, so that people can in future say "Of course it's notable. Simply look at the references section of the article!", ensures that they don't. Pile-on, unsupported, "It's notable." votes just yields another AFD nomination months or years from now, when another editor, who may never have even heard of these products in xyr country, decides to challenge a whole load of unsourced articles.) Uncle G 18:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Since you absolutely insist, here you go: The Man With No Name Aslan, ISBN 0944031579, The Famous Amos Story: The Face That Launched a Thousand Chips Bantam Doubleday, ISBN 0385193785), plus about a dozen Wally Amos "inspirational" books, which include firsthand anecdotes about the company. "Famous Amos" gets 2,250 results in Google's News Archive search. There is a lot written about this company. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Uncle G, how do you feel about "Smith, Andrew F., ed. The Junk Food and Fast Food Encyclopedia." as a potential source? Not to mention Wally Amos is himself notable. [2]. So I think his major product at least deserves an article, if not a redirect. Plus like I said, I'm pretty sure that they were featured in the History Channel's American Eats series. FrozenPurpleCube 18:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep verging on Speedy Keep. So notable that the story of the company has been turned into at least two published books that I know of (The Man With No Name in 1994, and The Famous Amos Story sometime in the 80s). It isn't called "Famous Amos" just 'cause it rhymes! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep per all the reasons given above. Seeing the blanket speedy deletion of all these products/companies makes it clear that those critical of G11 have a very strong basis to believe that G11 ought not to be a basis for SD. Agent 86 19:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - per above - AfDs are getting ridiculous! PT (s-s-s-s) 20:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Very famous brand name, and ask the admin who speedy deleted it why they did it since it would be like deleting the Pepsi article. TJ Spyke 20:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. Meets the requirements for product notability. Original speedy was nonsense.Cynical 22:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep with a nice tall glass of milk! Grindingteeth 15:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep notable brand name, available in many stores in the US --rogerd 16:36, 12 October 2006 (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.
