Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sacred Chocolate

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. With the exception of the article's creator, we have close to unanimous consensus to delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Chocolate

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

not seeing adequate actual reliable sourcing despite the host of links; awards seem to be insignificant –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 04:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. As far as adequate links, what are we looking for? Not significant recognition? No, every company is not Hershey! Reputable sourcing - this is a niche product in its own way, not an established company or conglomerate. Of course at present, sourcing will be scant at best. Should we delete every chocolate company which does not meet Fortune 500 standards? Product is unique, that alone makes it notable. Cutting-edge market - what evidence are you looking for? Appearances on major networks, Emmy Awards association - are we looking for the next Hershey here? I provided significant sources and noted recognition by major media enterprises - beyond that is unreasonable. This is a new market, growth will occur. Put it this way - I know of no other company producing raw chocolate that would even begin to achieve notability by Wikipedia standards. If this is about David Wolfe, let's not go there. Regards, Glacier2009 (talk) 04:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your alleged Fox News coverage is David Wolfe, the company's founder, talking about it in an interview on a daytime fluff show, and if you believe naturalnews.com is a "major network" or the San Francisco Chocolate Salon is a major industry award, you need to take off the WP:COI glasses. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say each source is a major network or award. Point being they are significant or credible sources, though perhaps not well-known. Glacier2009 (talk) 09:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Product is unique, that alone makes it notable." Yeah, no, no it doesn't. Sorry, but that's not how Wikipedia works. SarrCat ∑;3 03:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notable in that this is a new, fundamentally different process for producing chocolate, that is notable. Please, tell me how Wikipedia works, again? Glacier2009 (talk) 04:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A "fundamentally different process" huh? How is it different? What makes it so special? Do you have any reliable sources that explain exactly what it is about this "Sacred" chocolate that makes it so fundamentally different from ordinary chocolate? SarrCat ∑;3 15:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Believed that was self-explanatory. Conventional chocolate is roasted, but Sacred Chocolate is low-heat or raw-processed. Also, it is slowly stone-ground to help preserve vitamins and minerals, which is not at all standard procedure. In addition, this chocolate is poured and shaped in a way that may seem to have health properties. If this is about sourcing, we may just have to settle for new article "raw chocolate," as I have already made a good-faith effort to find credible, reliable sources. Glacier2009 (talk) 06:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further, what exactly would a "significant" award look like? This is a startup - need to win the award for largest market share to be considered notable? Glacier2009 (talk) 05:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails general notability standards. I'm finding only very limited coverage in verifiable, third party sources as, for example, this passing mention (scroll down to the 12th paragraph). Perhaps it is too soon for this company to have sufficient third party coverage? At best a merge to the founder's article, David_Wolfe_(nutritionist), but I see that one has its own sourcing issues. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 18:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retain If Wikipedia cares about being relevant in a meaningful way, article on raw chocolate should be retained. Where is the bias here? For the record, I have no "conflict of interest," and do not know anyone related to this enterprise directly or indirectly. Moreover, I have nothing to gain from this company's success or recognition, except seeing greater coverage of superfood nutrition on Wikipedia.

What passes for "reliable sourcing" on Wikipedia varies from page to page, and is quite amusing in some cases.

If this article is to be deleted, watch me create new article "raw chocolate." Glacier2009 (talk) 02:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To continue, that this product was even mentioned on a major TV news network is notable. In addition, there are subjects of a scientific nature which may seem to have "rough" sourcing, but warrant a Wikipedia article. Further, to accuse me of bias, and/or direct connection to subject, seems a deflection tactic, while Wikipedia may seem to have a general bias against the alternative and unconventional. Glacier2009 (talk) 03:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is currently nothing but a promotional piece for a product that is, quite frankly, woo-woo. Now, something being woo doesn't disqualify it from having an article on Wikipedia, but the lack of reliable sources DOES disqualify it. Find reliable sources, and there won't be a problem. SarrCat ∑;3 03:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Woo-woo" - hope that's a good thing, whatever it means. As stated earlier, we may have to move to article "raw chocolate." As far as "promoting," if by acknowledging people and entities, we are promoting them on Wikipedia, I hope we are not promoting cyanide as well. Glacier2009 (talk) 04:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have now updated the article to reflect the notability of the product and its fundamentally different production procedures. I have also provided a link to a BBC article on raw chocolate, which helps establish media recognition of this market, though it does not mention Sacred Chocolate specifically. Glacier2009 (talk) 10:57, 21 March 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to David Wolfe (nutritionist) without prejudice against undoing the redirect once significant coverage has been found. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Wolfe (nutritionist), I listed two sources that could be used to verify information about Sacred Chocolate in co-founder David Wolfe (nutritionist)'s article, so I support a selective merge. There is not enough coverage at this time to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 06:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To wait for the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Wolfe (nutritionist). Sandstein 19:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia reflects and does not give commercial products credible third party coverage. So if it has not had significant coverage elsewhere, it doesn't get it here. The other assertions about the uniqueness of the product are utterly irrelevant. JMWt (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:ITSSOURCED is not a valid reason to keep an article. The thing that defines the WP:Notability of a subject covered here is not just the quality of the source but the type of source. WP:Routine coverage in WP:Reliable sources does not confer notability to a subject, and a product review is the definition of routine coverage. As the majority of the sources fall under routine coverage or are WP:Primary in nature, I see no notability in the subject. If you could find sources that meet the WP:Sourcing standards here, I would easily support its inclusion. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 03:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Glane23 (talk · contribs) and I are supportive of a merge. Glacier2009 (talk · contribs), JMWt (talk · contribs), and Jerem43 (talk · contribs), would you support a merge/redirect of Sacred Chocolate to David Wolfe (nutritionist) if David Wolfe (nutritionist) is kept? Cunard (talk) 06:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Cunard. Yes, that seems most reasonable here. I think we can agree that, if David Wolfe (nutritionist) is kept, this subject is worthy of mention, as it represents not just a significant part of Wolfe's life-emphasis, but a breakthrough in the chocolate industry. Glacier2009 (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Should we delete every chocolate company which does not meet Fortune 500 standards?" Well, yes. Not as a guideline, but most are, like this one, probably WP:NOTNOTABLE. Programming G E E K (mah page! // use words to communicate page) 12:46, 26 March 2016 (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.