Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moser-Roth

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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moser-Roth (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)

It really is a bad idea to put "Company, corporation or organization" as an CSD criterion and then "Organisation, corporation or product" as an XfD category - I keep thinking CSD applies to products! That said.

At best, this is of questionable factual accuracy. I frequently shop in Aldi in Anerley and buy Moser-Roth chocolate. I have never once seen the word "Storck" on it, which would lead me to believe it is unaffiliated, though I will be checking the next time I go in there. At worst, this is of seriously questionable notability - no indication is provided and I can't find much online. Launchballer 21:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep "Nominator doesn't understand CSD" is not a valid rationale for AfD.

This is one of a recent series of confectionery AfDs with as little behind some of them as "I don't like nuts". This is a big confectionery brand, the house brand supplying a major slice of the confectionery for Aldi, a massive, and getting more so, grocery chain. They've been around for 170 years. How does an CSD#A7 or even an AfD stand up for such a major brand? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There's a 1941 centennial Festschrift for the company written by de:August Lämmle, a prominent Swabian local historian and dialect writer. Its history is covered in multiple online sites, including a large part of the 1910 episode in a series on Stuttgart through the decades published by the Stuttgarter Zeitung in cooperation with the city archives. And as an Aldi supplier it's a main example in at least two books and an article on Storck and the current head of the company. One of the books mentions its having been awarded a prize in 2007. I completed the translation of the German article, made a couple of corrections, and added references. I believe it now demonstrably meets GNG. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that the article now meets WP:GNG. Withdrawn with a note saying that the first part of the nomination was an apologetic explanation to Bbb23 as to why I CSDd it first.--Launchballer 10:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You still seem convinced that Deletion is Cleanup. This is not a good way to proceed. Whether or not a good result was achieved in this case, that's still a great way to piss off other editors faster than it improves article quality. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:00, 12 November 2014 (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.