Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miller Baking Company

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Miller Baking Company}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Miller_Baking_Company Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Miller Baking Company}})

Only coverage seems to be from February 2018, and that too is pretty trivial. It appears to be an everyday baking company that introduced a new product that was picked up by a couple of media outlets for thier daily puff piece. Not notable enough for wikipedia. 2Joules (talk) 06:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC) Striking confirmed, blocked sockpuppet nominator Atlantic306 (talk) 15:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Keep Added additional sources for this bakery which has been in existence since 1923, including [https://onmilwaukee.com/dining/articles/pretzilla2011.html this from 2011]. There are enough reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 20:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment That article fails WP:ORGIND as it relies on information provided by the company and a company officer, not intellectually independent, fails WP:ORGIND.
• Keep Good history and track, I am sure there's more even when the internet wasn't discovered. Mia Watson (talk) 15:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC) SockSTRIKE 2Joules (talk) 17:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Sufficient coverage in third-party reliable sources to meet notability guidelines. PohranicniStraze (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment That's not the test for notability. There must be two "intellectually independent" references to establish notability. So article that extensively rely on information from company sources without intellectually independent analysis/opinion (like the [https://onmilwaukee.com/dining/articles/pretzilla2011.html article from 2011 above]) fails WP:ORGIND.
• Delete and possibly rewrite since the only notability if any is the single product Pretzilla, that would be the more appropriate subject. DGG ( talk ) 10:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not convinced that that references don't exist. Unfortunately I don't have access to the books and I can't say either way whether they establish notability or not but [https://books.google.com/books?id=4T3klMRB7AkC this] and [https://books.google.com/books?id=isHe4QyWQrYC this] exists and (at least) mention the bakery. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. I added some references and expanded the article a bit. I have also posted a {{tl|requested move}} to Pretzilla Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment {{u|Eastmain}}, the requested move failed. I agree that an article on Pretzilla might stand a better chance of meeting notability guidelines that the company. Do you still believe the company is notable in its own right? HighKing⁺⁺ 12:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Not a single reference that I can access meets the criteria for establishing notability. The references added by Eastmain may help the establishment of the notability of Pretzilla, but it doesn't establish the notability of the company. As it stands, notability is not inherited. Neither is Wikipedia a substitute for a corporate website or a Yellow Pages. References fail WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:51, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• KeepThere are most definitely more sources to be added that support notability, [https://www.bakingbusiness.com/articles/46495-pretzilla-creating-a-story-behind-the-brand including this article from July 2018 Baking Business "Pretzilla: Creating a Story Behind the Brand"]. Other companies also have very similar entries that are not challenged, including Amoroso https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amoroso%27s_Baking_Company — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayfish420 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment That reference fails the criteria for establishing notability. The reference relies entirely on quotations from company execs with no intellectually independent anaylsis/opinion, therefore fails WP:ORGIND. The references also is not significant coverage, fails WP:SIGCOV and contains no in-depth information about the company, failing WP:CORPDEPTH. If there are other sources, please list them and we can see if they meet the criteria. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS⁺⁺ 12:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Genuine question - how could a profile of a company by that industry's leading publication not be considered 1) independent and 2) notable? By necessity, a profile will almost always include questions and answers from the company's executives. It also demonstrates an independent reporter's opinion that they found the company notable enough to profile. You cannot purchase these profiles. I will endeavor to add more sources to meet your criteria, I'm just having trouble understanding why the current sources are not sufficient. Thanks for your diligence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayfish420 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• Response Hi {{u|Jayfish420}}, please read WP:NCORP and in particular the WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH sections. I suspect you are misinterpreting the definition of "independent". It does not mean that the publisher and the company have no "links" as such - it means that the opinions/analysis provided in the publication is *intellectually* independent. In the reference you provided, there is no independent opinion/analysis, everything has been provided by the company or company sources. HighKing⁺⁺ 09:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• Response Thanks for that guidance. I'm working on uploading appropriate supporting material now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayfish420 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Remember, there are a number of ways to prove a topics relevance, outside of sourcing. The company's 'Pretzilla' brand appears to be the leader in pretzel buns. Through an online shopping search for pretzel buns, 'Pretzilla' brand consistently is at the top or very near it across in different shopping sites.[https://www.google.com/search?q=pretzel+buns&source=lnms&tbm=shop&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwilkKP-jZbcAhXkz4MKHWtwBwcQ_AUICigB&biw=1364&bih=679 1][https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1/137-6622004-6273445?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=pretzel+buns 2]. Henry ^TALK 03:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.