Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Econofoods

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 Draftify‎. asilvering (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Econofoods

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

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources on the page and in a WP:BEFORE do not meet WP:ORGCRIT. With only two locations I am unsure if press outside the local area could be found. CNMall41 (talk) 23:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, North Dakota, and South Dakota. CNMall41 (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep as a notable-enough regional Iowa supermarket. Some book sources coming up and listings in Plunkett's food industry and retail almanacs, and the Hoover's Handbook of American Business, Handbook of NASDAQ stocks,. Combined with a few of the local news stories about store closings and acquisitions I think this does pass WP:GNG.[1][2] Andre🚐 01:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrevan:, sorry, just seeing your comment now or would have pinged you earlier. The two you cited from The Register Mail are both about two local stores closing. In fact, they are basically the same (one from the employee perspective and one from the customer perspective). Neither meet WP:CORPDEPTH for the chain itself. The other two are business listings. Are there any references out there you found that meet WP:ORGCRIT?--CNMall41 (talk) 06:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree those sources might not meet a stricter standard, I think it meets GNG, along with the other local news already in the article, and I'm not sure that merging with Nash Finch or SpartanNash is necessary, but I can't see a full-scale delete beyond that merger, and I think other times when companies have been merged it's muddled up the history in a confusing way that could be resolved by treating as separate articles. A regional grocery chain with not a lot of stores can be notable with sourcing that describes it with a bit of narrative as these local stories do, through a local lens, but aren't ROUTINE or press releases. They describe the acquisition of the chain by Nash Finch. “When Nash-Finch came in, I was working in Monmouth. It was my day off and I got the call at home,” Cecil said. He said he started to suffer from burnout as Nash-Finch “dictated” ways of doing business that he didn’t agree with, such as selling select, rather than choice beef. “I was told they were doing less than half the business we were doing in ’98,” Cecil said of Econofoods when it closed. “It didn’t have to happen.” An unlikely place for business analysis perhaps, but there you go. The other one talks about consolidation in the market. This is corroborated by the business almanacs and Moody's listings and other stuff that come up on a Google Books search. As I said, I think it meets GNG, and I think more data could be found in Newspapers.com which has over 20,000 results in Iowa, but I'm at a keep because I believe GNG-level sourcing exists and more could be found for an article here. Andre🚐 06:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point. However, as a company, it must meet the standards for companies and do not feel that these references do. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a stricter WP:SNG standard for what is presumed notable, but any article is notable if it meets WP:GNG. Unless that has changed, the stricter standard is supplemental. Besides which, the purpose is to keep out promotional articles, not the history of regional supermarkets. Notability as a guideline has interpretation, but it's not WP:IAR to use GNG instead of CORP, because it's a supplemental presumption guideline that doesn't obviate GNG. You are free to still opine delete here of course. WP:N: A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) Emphasis mine.Andre🚐 05:43, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Unless that has changed" - That has not changed so you are quoting the SNG and GNG guidelines correctly. It is interesting as I argued this same contention (the one you present here) years ago but the company deletion discussions have, at least for the last four or five years, applied NCORP over GNG which is the reason for my contention to delete this page. Would be interesting to get a consensus otherwise as it would allow for keeping some pages that would be borderline under NCORP but likely meet GNG. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty much guaranteed that when an editor starts arguing to ignore NCORP, its an acknowledgement that the topic fails the criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per what Andre said. ^Wiinter_U 04:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Also relevant that both Keep !voters acknowledge that the sourcing fails NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 13:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No Objections to a Move to Draft either if somebody thinks there are enough sources out there.... HighKing⁺⁺ 13:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft to provide time for further research and potential expansion. Newspapers.com returns 34,082 matches for "Econofoods", though at first glance many are advertisements and many are for uses other than this subject. Nonetheless, some are substantive articles addressing this article subject, and a deeper dive might uncover enough to meet NCORP. BD2412 T 00:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. I know it's a view that also gets put forward at DRV every so often, but I am thus far unconvinced it is a rational interpretation of the guidelines to obviate the entire force of NCORP for every article it could possibly apply to. No objection to delete either. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this should be drafted per @HighKing & alpha3031. 2603:8001:7106:C515:7811:9D52:2B0E:FC2C (talk) 20:44, 30 October 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.