Talk:Gimmee Jimmy's Cookies
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 19 October 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
have you read the Starbucks Wikipedia page? It contains the identical format as this article. I used the Starbucks format on the basis that the companies are in fact quite similar. Also I am still editing this page and will add more to it. Mrs. Fields and Dunkin' Donuts also has wikipedia page with an identical format as Gimmee Jimmy's Cookies
- You need some sources to establish encyclopedic value- independent significant coverage beyond local. One or two sources may do but PR and ads and self-published or blogs don't count. There is some claim that public companies are inherently notable, not sure how that worked out as OTCBB's will attract scammers, so I guess if you have any traded securities that may work. Even derogatory notability will save the article. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I don't know that I would have chosen the "promotion" option for speedy deletion, but I would have used the "non-notable company" option. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- This article does not meet the CSD G11, and I have removed the template. I have added a PROD template instead, meaning the article will be deleted in seven days, assuming no one removes the template before then. Regards, The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 17:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
You can easily find many reliable sources on Google, and thus, the article does appear to meet the notability guidelines for companies. The Gimmee Jimmy's Cookies pages are not promotional, and have been written in the identical format as the pages for Starbucks, which is currently listed on Wikipedia. There for, they are in fact encyclopedic nature precisely because another company, very similar in nature, enjoys a Wikipedia page.
Here are several articles that can be found on www.google.com specifically concerning Gimmee JImmy's Cookies
Ocala Star Banner http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=A8cVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=0g4EAAAAIBAJ&pg=4562,7838682&dq=gimmee+jimmy%27s+cookies&hl=en
The Blade Toledo http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=xQsVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=zgIEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6799,2379473&dq=gimmee+jimmy%27s+cookies&hl=en
New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/09/technology/investing-gearing-up-for-trading-the-computerized-way.html
Philadelphia Inquirer http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=PI&s_site=philly&p_multi=PI&p_theme=realcities&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EB32BE9D1B30438&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathanc57 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see that any of these sources is referenced in the article. See WP:RS and WP:REF. By the way, please sign your comments on Talk page! Just type four tildes (~~~~) at the end and Wikipedia will convert them to a signature. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
If you read the top of this discussion I clearly state this is work in progress, this page was commented on with in minutes of it being posted. Also i am completely new to Wikipedia and am completely unfamiliar with the editing tool. I am learning as fast as I can, but you and your associates discussion is taking away from my ability to master the basic skills necessary.
I am not even sure where or how to add the references above. I am some what surprised that an automated message was placed on the page when clearly this page is fashioned after other pages from similar companies. Do you guys comment on Mrs Fields and Starbucks like you do to Gimmee Jimmy's Cookies? Jonathanc57 (talk) 17:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- To begin with, I already addressed, above, your surprise at the article being treated differently from Starbucks and Mrs. Fields. If you're going to ignore the responses to the concerns you express and just repeat them from scratch, then there won't be much point in responding to the rest of your concerns. But I'll give it a go anyway.
- As I said earlier, I didn't agree with the person who called for speedy deletion on the grounds that the article was promotional because I didn't consider the article promotional. Speedy deletion is also called for when the article itself doesn't give a credible representation up front that the topic is notable—this requirement is meant to deal with the scads and scads of articles posted every day that people post about their classmates, their siblings, their favorite local DJs, and themselves. While this is a pain for people posting their first article about a genuinely notable topic, ordinarily in those cases there is something about the original article that indicates why the topic might be notable and deserve longer consideration.
- As it is, the article is now under a proposed deletion, which means that (a) you can remove it yourself if you feel it was posted on invalid grounds and (b) even if it stays up, you have seven days to work on the article before an administrator will come along and delete the article if the deletion request was just. So I understand that you feel rushed, but the circumstances aren't as severe as they seem.
- Just so you know, if you do take down the PROD request, someone can replace it with an Articles for deletion request, which sets up a week-long discussion among editors interested in contributing, from which an administrator will derive a consensus.
- I'm sorry for your understandable sense of discouragement. There is no intent to dissuade people from posting articles on topics of note. Please see some information about writing articles that should help you out.
- Regards, —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Largo:
I took the time to write the article in a different manner and a new group of editors have jumped up and slated the article for deletion. Any ideas on what can be done? Gimmee Jimmy's Cookies is a legitimate business with a legitimate verifiable story. Jonathanc57 (talk) 04:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- The article hasn't been slated for deletion. Those are maintenance tags, which are placed at the top of many articles to flag them for particular kinds of work that needs to be done to conform to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the issues aren't remedied or dismissed, then perhaps someone else will come along and nominate the page for deletion. The tags are dated, so if they're unattended to, people can see how long it's been since the issues have been raised.
- It is written like, not so much an advertisement, as it is a publicity brochure, or a puff piece written for a lifestyle magazine. "Mr. Libman's personal story is a remarkable one." "... offering them a great place to hone their skills ... ". "... wonderful cookies." "A spectacular baking team was hired, ...." "... his abilities are immediately apparent in the quality of the new products ...." Etc. You are writing this as the inspiring tale of a man with a vision and a great company with a heartwarming origin, and you tell us about all the wonderful goodies we can find there. It's fine to write an article like this, but not for Wikipedia.
- Wikipedia's an encyclopedia, a reference work. Its purpose is to provide neutrally presented information about topics whose notability satisfies Wikipedia's guidelines, with no original research, no synthesis of the information taken from reliable sources into new conclusions that aren't backed up by reliable sources, no appeals, no expressions of inspiration or admiration or condemnation, no judgments, no indication of the author's personal feelings about the subject. That's different from the kind of article you've written.
- As long as no one else has requested deletion so far, you can take the time to rework the article, or you can see if anyone else jumps in and does it for you. FYI, articles aren't owned by their original authors. Others who are interested may pitch in and make changes.
- Are you by any chance connected with the business? If so, then you should be aware of Wikipedia's guidelines regarding conflicts of interest. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Dear Sir or Madam: In what way is this article "written like an advertisement"? Surely, that is not the intent of the article's author. This article, in fact, was recently re-written precisely to provide a neutral point of view. Indeed, the article now simply relates the past history and current status of Gimmee Jimmy's Cookies. That there is a "positive" tone to the article may be attributed merely to the fact that baking and selling cookies and other baked goods is FUN. The author vigorously denies that the article is "advertising", whether blatant or otherwise. Truly, if this is "advertising", then so surely is ANY article about ANY company's history and current status. After all, by definition, an article about a company is letting people know about that company and would thus qualify as "advertising". Making the category so broad as to include everything renders the category meaningless.
Additionally, the author would like to understand specifically what can be improved in terms of "layout". Nothing appears objectionable to the author in terms of the current "layout" of the article.
Finally, as for inline citations, there are none to offer at the moment, inasmuch as Gimmee Jimmy's Cookies remains a privately-held company. We can link to all articles ever written which mention Gimmee Jimmy's Cookies, but that would seem to be pointless citation for the sake of citation. Surely, the history and current status of the company are not objectionable simply because the company is not big enough yet to have been covered by Forbes, Fortune, Business Week, or the Wall Street Journal, etc. Jonathanc57 (talk) 02:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Go to any encyclopedia and look up their article on, say, France. You'll find that it doesn't go on about how marvelous France is, or how much fun. You will probably find it pretty dry. But the important thing is that the information in it is reference quality, and can be verified by looking behind it at published primary and secondary sources. As for the other articles to which you refer, I wonder if you've really looked carefully to determine whether they have the same problems this one does. Have you looked yet at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? Finally, as far as inline citations are concerned, if the only source of any of the information in the article is your personal knowledge or, directly or indirectly, information provided by the business, then the article doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. There has to be some standard, or else people could post articles about every ridiculous thing. The standard is defined in terms of coverage by reliable sources—in other words, an indication that the topic has already received meaningful consideration elsewhere and therefore belongs here. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Largo how can it be arranged for you to re-write this article? Take what has been written and strip out what you finds objectionable. Jonathanc57 (talk) 12:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
External links modified edit
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Gimmee Jimmy's Cookies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090106050643/http://www.jdcc.org/site/1998/may-jun/business.htm to http://www.jdcc.org/site/1998/may-jun/business.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120910174400/http://www.northjersey.com/news/business/88329907_Gimmee_Jimmy_s_makes_up_a_variety_of_sweet_treats.html to http://www.northjersey.com/news/business/88329907_Gimmee_Jimmy_s_makes_up_a_variety_of_sweet_treats.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)