Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vitamin Cottage Natural Grocers

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 no consensus. No consensus to delete this article. Nakon 04:57, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vitamin Cottage Natural Grocers

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

Advertisement, with no acceptable sources for notability , and no reason to think there will be any. The awards are utterly trivial. The references are to mere announcements. Added in 2008, G11 declined--which may have ben correct by the low standards of that time--and made worse by single purpose editors editors since then. DGG ( talk ) 13:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agreed, no evidence of notability. Tacyarg (talk) 01:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete advertisement for the company (and its stock price) " new stores opening monthly" says it all, namely "acquire me too, Amazon!". Jytdog (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not sure how nom would conclude that there is "no reason to think there will be any" acceptable sources for notability. A 60-year-old publicly traded company with 140 locations is quite likely to have such sources available, and it does. Some of the content is overly promotional, but AfD is not the place to deal with that. Ongoing coverage in the Denver Post ([1] [2] [3]), Rocky Mountain News ([4] [5] [6]), Denver Business Journal ([7] [8] [9]), and ColoradoBiz ([10] [11] [12]). Profiled in Inc. magazine. Covered in various other publications ([13] [14] [15] [16]). Toohool (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep manifestly notable. Plenty of coverage. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Toohool, clearly there is sufficient coverage to establish notability. postdlf (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is well-known company here in Colorado, and it's an important part of the economy of Colorado and other states. With some editing to provide a more-neutral tone, the article will be useful. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Every "keep" vote here has made hand-wavy claims citing zero sources or policies. AfD is not a Facebook "like" contest. I have cleaned up the article further. Jytdog (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even though this company is a publically quoted company and has been established for quite some time, none of the references above or within the article meets the criteria for establishing notabilty. Articles that are extensively based on quotations and interviews with company personnel or other "connected" people are considered PRIMARY sources and therefore fail to establish notability and may also fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. If the reference is based on quotations and interviews but *also* contains substantial intellectually independent opinion/analysis, then the reference probably meets the criteria for establishing notability. Unfortunately, I don't believe that any of the references provided manages to meet the criteria. But ... WP:LISTED specifically states Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports. To that end, this reference lists a number of analyst firms and banks that cover this company and states that "Several other analysts have also recently issued report on NGVC". This reference also provides a list of analyst opinions. Since I am not a customer of any of the brokerage arms of these banks or a customer of any of the analyst firms, I cannot attest that the analyst reports actually exist ... but I think it is reasonable to assume that they do. On that basis, it meets the criteria WP:LISTED. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:20, 8 February 2018 (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.