Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Loblaw boycott

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 merge‎ to Loblaw Companies without prejudice against a (near) future spinoff into a separate article, if WP:LASTING SIGCOV were to support independent notability. Even ignoring the obvious canvassing, arguments on the Merge side were generally more reliant on P&G than the Keep views, with the latter mostly relying on the preponderance of news coverage rather than on its depth or endurance, although the Keep views successfully rebutted the WP:CRYSTAL accusation. Owen× ☎ 20:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Loblaw boycott[edit]


[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

2024 Loblaw boycott (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)

WP:NOTNEWS, WP:CRYSTALBALL. A boycott of only about 60 thousand people and probably less will not drastically affect the largest supermarket chain in Canada. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 17:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 17:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd like to argue that I had taken the adequate steps in creating the article in a way that does not treat the situation as if it is acting as a WP:CRYSTALBALL. One could argue that it's nothing more than a boycott that originated from Reddit, but it's absolutely reached far beyond that, otherwise it wouldn't have been making national news, nor would I have created the article in the first place. There's a good amount of sources covering about this topic not only during/near the beginning of the boycott, but in the months leading up to it as well. Additionally pasting this here from what I've previously stated, but this is easily one of the most established consumer boycott movements directly related to the 2021–2023 inflation surge and in the 2020s overall outside of the American conservative-led Bud Light and Target Pride Month boycotts/backlash movements.
Adding on to this, but the only editors who have seen this as potentially being delete-worthy were a number of WP:ITN voters. It's received a passing review as well as a "go" sign by an Administrator on the DYK nomination (with the exception that a QPQ had to be completed). B3251 (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Loblaw. Until we actually know the size of this boycott, a separate article is simply not necessary. If it draws 100,000s and has continued coverage over the month, now that's likely something, but it is CRYSTAL to predict how much of a planned boycott (particularly one organized on Reddit) will have. --Masem (t) 02:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Loblaw Companies, in a reduced form. Too recent. Almost all of the coverage is from last week. I can't find support for the boycott being reported on prior to 18/4/2024 (although I haven't done WP:BEFORE level searching). I also couldn't find support for the vague suggestion planning started in January 2024.
    The Steal from Loblaw thing may or may not be worth merging, but it seems like it's a parallel thing with which the organizers are denying any relationship. Oblivy (talk) 02:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This topic is subject to massive news coverage in Canada; it's on all of the major networks and newspapers, night and day, running for days now. We do not judge notability based on outcome, we base it on coverage, and this passes any bar one might wish to consider for article creation. The arguments above are to the effect of "we don't know the outcome of the protest", but I'm not sure what that is supposed to even mean - we don't know the outcome of the campus protests in the US over Israel's involvement in Palestine, yet there are several articles on that topic and not one has been AfDed. The Loblaws coverage started the same time, so I'm likewise not sure how one can argue it's "too recent" and the other isn't. I'm inclined to SNOW this AfD unless someone can come up with a cogent argument based on actual policy. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In my view the relevant policy is WP:CRYSTAL. All of the cites relating to the boycott are extremely recent. I put a link above to a mid-April day on which a local newspaper reported on the boycott. Maybe there's something earlier, I don't know.
    Although not a policy, the article has, in my view, some WP:COATRACK attributes as it puts together (1) allegations against the company (the background section), (2) the history of the reddit group, (3) the boycott and some corporate reaction, and (4) steal from Loblaw. These all fit a theme, which is anti-Loblaw activism (speaking directly, not trying to be provocative), and perhaps that's an article that could be written now. But an article on the boycott itself is too soon for the reason given above. Oblivy (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article should not be deleted. The boycott started two days ago and is ongoing for the entire month. The Loblaws boycott is happening nationally and receiving press coverage from various sources. Deleting this article in the midst of the event when it is gaining more traction daily seems like someone is colluding with Loblaws to get more favourable press for their company. Wikipedia is suppose to be independent. The article should stay as it provides valuable information on the Loblaws Boycott. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleeplessjade (talk • contribs) 13:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC) — Sleeplessjade (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Sleeplessjade (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
    Please assume good faith. There are three editors who didn't vote for keep, and it is unwise to assume they're all conflict of interest editors. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me directly address your concern: No, I am not related to Loblaw. Neither is anyone who is !voting here (probably). 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 20:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Once the boycott ends, the article will serve as a permanent record of its success or failure. Bradlegar the Hobbit (talk)
  • Comment to closer: This AfD has been posted off-wiki on Reddit, with instructions to vote Keep, see [1] ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 02:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As the article creator, I apologize for the actions of whoever may have posted this. I didn't make the Reddit post nor do I use Reddit, but this being posted in the community that is an active subject in the article itself causes major WP:BIAS issues with potential votes coming from r/loblawsisoutofcontrol community members rather than editors. B3251 (talk) 03:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for letting us know. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 07:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Posted again today [2]. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 03:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Loblaw Companies, per above. WP:TOOSOON and/or WP:CRYSTAL apply here. It would be a fine section in Loblaw Companies, but not much more. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 05:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't really buy the argument that because we don't know how a boycott will work out, we can't have it on Wikipedia. It's clearly very well supported by sources so is notable enough of an event. GraziePrego (talk) 08:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The criteria we should use is the notability of the topic, not the possible outcome of the boycott itself. The Wikipedia article already has a quote from François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry), and Galen Weston Jr. (chairman of Loblaws), showing that it is creating a response from people in politics and the corporation. This article has 41 news articles cited as of May 5 from a wide range of news sources. The only reason that has been given is the prediction on the success of the boycott, which isn't a normal criteria that Wikipedia considers for deletion. If there is some criteria that is missing, it is recommended that that be better clarified in the discussion, so that the article can be improved, such as through additional citations or editing of the page.DivaNtrainin (talk) 01:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't saying the boycott wont have any effect trying to predict the future itself. It also assume that only members of the sub will participate in the boycott.
We don't know what the effect on the corporation financials will have.
But there's already very big PR damage done. It's on all the news network (both in French and English) and even the president of Loblaw met with one of the organiser. So the event itself is already something tangible and acknowledged by the Loblaw.
It can also be argued that it's a social event of mention in Canada on it's own. Jocoeur (talk) 01:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the above two comments do not stand up to longstanding policies that say we should not predict future events, like WP:CRYSTAL. There is no merit to claiming that those voting for merge or delete are predicting the boycott is going to fail. The onus is on those voting keep to offer policy-based arguments that this extremely recent and ongoing event is shown, based on things that have already happened and been reported on in reliable sources, to merit a separate article. Oblivy (talk) 02:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Your arguement is a reason to keep the article, not delete it. The fact that this boycott has created a lot of PR and the President of Loblaws (Galen Weston) has met with the organizer gives credence that the boycott is news worthy. There is still uncertainty of the effect of the boycott, but uncertainty by itself is not a reason for deletion. We can tag this as an ongoing event. We can add corporate financials as a separate subsection once they become available, but we shouldn't wait until financials become available to have this article. I have also seen some articles that this has lead to an increase in sales for local and alternative grocers, which is also something we can add to the article. If there is reliable articles regarding a shift in consumers spending, that is just as important as Loblaws bottom line.DivaNtrainin (talk) 16:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I advocate keeping some of the content but not having a separate page. Noted that several days into the boycott people already extrapolate that it's having an effect, but there are longstanding policies cited above that counsel against including recent events such as this. Oblivy (talk) 01:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the time being. It currently stands alone to have more info than a paragraph in the Loblaws article. If the article does not fill out sufficiently over time through coverage, which it already does have ample coverage, merge into the Loblaws article later on. Otherwise known as - too soon to tell, but currently big enough to warrant it's own article. CaffeinAddict (talk) 00:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems like a reasonably referenced page and providing it sticks to referenced facts rather than conjecture, I'm not seeing how WP:CRYSTAL really applies. Ordinarily we might expect a section of a page to expand and become its own page but it seems like this is already too long to merge back. That said, it does feel that if the boycott turned out to be of limited impact it would be right to severely trim and perhaps merge at that stage. JMWt (talk) 08:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue with CRYSTAL arises because the article was created basically at the same time the boycott was launched. As this AfD has ground along it has looked less temporary/speculative. Even today the evidence of impact seems like weak sauce (although I'm sure someone will disagree with me on that).
    It's due to be relisted or closed. At this point I'd rather see it closed even if that means keep - as you say, if it turns out to be speculative it can be trimmed or merged. Oblivy (talk) 09:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be a very strong consensus not to delete, a somewhat smaller argument for merge, and a fairly strong consensus for keep, at least in the immediate term. As such, I think this is safe to SNOW? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:48, 10 May 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2024_Loblaw_boycott&oldid=1223244165"