Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bean-to-bar chocolate manufacturers

List of bean-to-bar chocolate manufacturers

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

Quite apart from the clumsy title, this article is just a Category in page form, it adds nothing encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a directory of companies or product manufacturers. If a company is notable then it will can have a page of its own, which can then be added to an appropriate category. Pyrop e 13:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pursuant to WP:CLN. While this list has issues (e.g. spam, redlinks) they can be fixed by editing, it adds significantly more content than a category would (the sortable "Location" column, for example). I would not object to a less clumsy title, but fundamentally I do not see how this page is different than many, many other similar and useful list articles (e.g. List of management consulting firms, List of venture capital firms and many many more). UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually, as I read WP:CLN, one of the major drawbacks to lists is that they Can become bogged down with entries that cannot be reliably sourced and do not meet the requirements for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. This page suffers from that already. As for the location column, that can easily be replicated by subcategories such as "Bean-to-bar chocolate manufacturers in...". In addition, just because other cruddy lists exist doesn't mean that this one should. In fact, List of venture capital firms has already been criticized as not valuable and an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. Why add another? Pyrope e 13:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update I have edited the list to remove all the redlinks. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chocolate#Manufacturers. None of this is sourced, and as Pyrope alluded to, the issue of completeness will always be looming over this. The section of the main article on Chocolate is probably more valuable because, while it does not list every single manufacturer, the prose puts them in some sort of context. Kansan (talk) 14:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DOL, more than other rules, should never be used as a rationale here without specifically linking reasons from the article, as no list can be assumed to meet its criteria. Completeness is not a WP rule. Another 'Appeal to Incompetence' (Thin end of the wedge + Appeal to ignorance), which postulates that WP must protect against editors editing improperly or readers reading improperly. WP is what it is; wanting to make it less than it is because you don't like it must remain IDLers' problem, not WP's.

Anarchangel (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Completeness may not be a condition, but without it it is very hard to answer the question "what is the point of this page?" Ok, so it may have a sortable location column, but that implies that you have every manufacturer from that country listed, which they aren't. This is misleading the reader. As is also pointed out below, this simplistic column actually hides the truth that many of these companies are pan-national and have major operations in many parts of the world. Sticking one country in a column verges on misrepresentation. Other details in this table are also so dumbed-down that they are not really useful, which again calls into question its purpose. If you are saying that a lack of sourcing isn't something to be worried about then I suggest you go and completely rewrite WP:VERIFY as it seems to disagree with you. Finally, citing IDL is pretty cheap, as everyone who has commented so far has given thoughtful, considered opinions. Pyrop e 01:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I point out flaws in reasoning whether I agree with the author's vote or not. In the same way, my views on V are not represented at all by my concerns that Kansan's arguments and your arguments appeared to be assuming that WP rules were saying things that they do not. I don't see that the columns are hiding anything. The obvious solution to a lack of completeness would be to render it into prose, although I do admit that would be a lot of work. Personally, I would have guessed that any bean-to-bar operation would have to have a considerable financial backing at its disposal, so I would not be at all surprised to see multinationals there. And as for every manufacturer being listed, again, that comes down to improving the article. I should also point out if it were not already obvious that I lack knowledge in this area and if you have some expert knowledge in this area, please feel free to say so. However, I am not currently able to say that I can see any problems based on what you have said so far. Is there any reason why gaps in the list could not be filled, for example? Anarchangel (talk) 09:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update

(I hope I use the correct way of contributing here) Thanks for joining the discussion on the idea of this page. There are several reasons for this page to consider it obsolete or at least providing misleading information. The idea of 'bean-to-bar' is in itself suspect to different interpretations. With that the supply chain of cacao -> chocolate bars is very complex with a variety of actors masking many steps. Beyond that also the idea of the "location" column is susceptible to interpretations (is it the financial HQ, is it the plant, etc...) The processing of the various steps in 'bean-to-bar' happens on many locations. I have talked this morning with a genuine chocolate maker, and feel supported in the current list being a messy melting pot of different actors. Bottom line, although lists may have value - even for Wikipedia, in this case the 'parameter' (in casu 'bean-to-bar) for that list is not exclusive enough to be meaningful nor to be able to cover a list that holds with the idea of quality of information in a Wikipedia environment. If deletion of the entry is your option, it creates a challenge and opportunity for a thorough 'bean-to-bar' discussion'. In the meantime some things can be taken to the Chocolate#Manufacturers area as you suggest. Thank you for your thoughts and actions accordingly EvertJDK (talk) 13:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per UnitedStatesian; a worthwhile list of bluelink articles, contains information a category could not, scope reasonably well explained.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move (to rename title) per EvertJDK (talk) 21:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

many of the companies still listed don't produce chocolate,
many of the companies still listed start from liquor instead of bean
cleaning up the list will need another difficult debate
the chocolate industry suffers from a lot of 'untransparancies'
the idea of lists vs Wikipedia policies
several companies cannot disclose why they should or can't be on the list (strategic contracts)
In various ways, several steps in the complex chocolate process can be outsourced to other companies/facilities that process a specific step, and then return the new semi product further in the supple & production chain. So who is really making what?

The bean-to-bar "term" is very argueable for many other reasons, hence the very minimum would still be to change the title of the topic I would say to move/ Redirect to Chocolate#Manufacturers. cfr. Kansan and Pyrope