Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minnesota Grocers Association

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 delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota Grocers Association[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Non-encyclopedic content and tone. Clear issues with WP:COI and WP:PRIMARY which have been flagged for 4+ years without improvement. Nsteffel (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in any case as it would seem acceptable at first but there's no simply no signs of improvement. The name found several links at News, Books, browser, Highbeam and Newspapers Archive but nothing convincingly good. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It would be a shame to lose it since it covers a lot of history. I found a small number of links in a books search. Including an article in Mother Jones magazine [1] and another on the fight against big tobacco [2]. It's not a huge amount, and it won't cover the historical information which probably only comes from the ass'n itself. I think there's a story there if someone will take it on. However, it may take a fair amount of research. LaMona (talk) 03:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with SwisterTwister. It does seem a shame to delete an article about such an old organization but there's no in-depth coverage that can be found. It's possible it exists offline in old news coverage, but we'd need some indication of this. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even though relisted several times No significant sources Wikienglish123 (talk) 16:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SOCKSTRIKE -- KTC (talk) 03:30, 9 November 2015 (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.