Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lindt Home of Chocolate

Lindt Home of Chocolate

Lindt Home of Chocolate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

The shop does not have enough coverage in media to meet notability requirements. JohnMizuki ([[User talk:|talk]]) 19:31, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Museums and libraries, and Switzerland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
• I don’t understand the reasoning of the nominator. 1) It’s not a shop 2) The article is based on reliable independent sources. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 07:19, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

  The purpose of the "museum" is to promote one single brand, the same company that created it. It seems it's a museum only in name, and I can see in the museum photos that products are sold in situ. I would not consider it a cultural institution. In addition, all the press coverage that I found seems to be press releases. JohnMizuki (talk) 12:17, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

  I think literally every museum has a shop. And that’s a museum is about it own brand is not a reason as it’s about coverage in sources. I don’t see evidence that the listed sources are press releases. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 19:19, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:BEFORE, which applies to non-BLPs. I easily found there is significant coverage of this subject in entire news and magazine articles in reliable sources. (Additional, tangential reasons: Wikipedia:It's a castle! comes closest to my thoughts on tourist attractions. On one hand, I think we need to be cautious about adding more policies in the near future, for reasons I don't want to discuss here. On the other hand, there's probably a consensus that a tourist attraction that gets at least 2,000 visitors a day might be worth inclusion.) Bearian (talk) 08:08, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: On a skim, I'm pretty sure that much of its coverage, particularly after its opening, looks paid/facilitated and should be examined through a WP:NCORP / WP:INDEPENDENT lens, specifically the DesignWanted article which is written by a freelancer (cf https://designwanted.com/submit-news/) and doesn't make any declarations (other than Lindt copyrights on the pictures). That said indicates that it is a genuine attraction (tickets sold out today) so it's not just a thinly disguised excuse for a retail outlet, and deletion should never be the correct result (though merge/redirect to Lindt#Museum might be). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 12:07, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

  I even see it’s sold out for the coming few weeks until 9 September, haha. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 19:19, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

• Keep - there is decent coverage and that it be attached to a specific brand does not shock me (it is pretty common here). Superboilles (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Not unusual for companies to have museums about their own products or brands, and many of these are very popular tourist attractions. Certainly enough coverage of this to establish notability and there seems to be enough content to justify a separate article as well. Reywas92^Talk 22:58, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Keep - notability satisfies any of nominators concerns. MayhemStoppingBy (talk) 23:09, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

• Keep though a merge or redirect of the content into Lindt might be good enough. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:37, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. Meets WP:GNG and Wikipedia:It's a castle! is apt in this nomination.4meter4 (talk) 14:21, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

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.