Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zupan's Markets
- 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. Passions ran high in this discussion, and strong arguments were raised by both sides. But in the end, participants could not reach a rough consensus about whether the sources establish sufficient notability to meet our guidelines. Owen× ☎ 23:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Zupan's Markets
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Zupan's Markets (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)
Hyper-local niche family owned grocery store with mere three stores in the Portland, Oregon metro area. Fails
]- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Oregon. Graywalls (talk) 02:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: I found this source, which shows coverage that's more than just hyper-local. Left guide (talk) 04:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)]
- This screams sensationalism. Like "10 best affordable tequila"... the best US made tofu... type stuff. That falls far short of Wikipedia:SIRS. Also, looking at the article creator's edit history, my experience strong suggests it screams public relations editing. Graywalls (talk) 07:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)]
- The source looks reliable in accordance with Left guide (talk) 08:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)]
- Reliable in that these are that author's opinions, but reliable vs notable aren't quite the same. Articles in companies and organizations is the highest standard applied for notability test, because they're the most susceptible to promotional article creation. That article certainly wouldn't be something that can be used to support notability of each of 12 businesses. Graywalls (talk) 10:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree, it certainly can be used to support notability for each of those 12 businesses. If it was selecting 12 businesses from the same city block (like the sources we've seen in Carmel-by-the-Sea articles), then that would likely be an Left guide (talk) 10:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)]
- "The 12 Best Grocery Store Deli Counters, Ranked" source is from a website that describes itself as "made up of passionate foodies" focused on providing "opinions on which items are worth buying" - so in addition to being an WP:NCORP guideline because it is]
inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists
, it also appears to be a low-quality website focused on advertising and promotion. Beccaynr (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- "The 12 Best Grocery Store Deli Counters, Ranked" source is from a website that describes itself as "made up of passionate foodies" focused on providing "opinions on which items are worth buying" - so in addition to being an
- I respectfully disagree, it certainly can be used to support notability for each of those 12 businesses. If it was selecting 12 businesses from the same city block (like the sources we've seen in Carmel-by-the-Sea articles), then that would likely be an
- Reliable in that these are that author's opinions, but reliable vs notable aren't quite the same. Articles in companies and organizations is the highest standard applied for notability test, because they're the most susceptible to promotional article creation. That article certainly wouldn't be something that can be used to support notability of each of 12 businesses. Graywalls (talk) 10:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- The source looks reliable in accordance with
- This screams sensationalism. Like "10 best affordable tequila"... the best US made tofu... type stuff. That falls far short of
- Keep. I'll also chime in and vote for keeping the page alive. Zupan's, at one time, was a larger chain with more locations in/around the Portland metropolitan area. Just because it's hit a rough patch in recent years doesn't mean its Wikipedia page should get erased from existence. Furthermore, I'm of the opinion the sources cited here clear the notability bar. Constablequackers (talk) 14:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: I agree with the nomination, coverage is all routine local business happenings. One location closing. Small family run business, nothing terribly different than any other such commercial enterprise. Oaktree b (talk) 15:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, per GNG and comments above by User:Left guide and User: Constablequackers. I have removed some of the promo philanthropy stuff and added several additional reliable sources published by major outlets. This article should be expanded, not deleted. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)]
- Keep. Coverage is sufficient for talk) 23:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)]
- @WP:TRADES with regard to use of trade magazines for notability purposes. Graywalls (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)]
- I'm aware. The linked story meets the qualifications of a feature story. There is a credited author, independent research, and examples of interviewing multiple subjects to tell a factual story. talk) 02:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)]
- I'm aware. The linked story meets the qualifications of a feature story. There is a credited author, independent research, and examples of interviewing multiple subjects to tell a factual story.
- @
- Fails HighKing++ 11:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)]
- The article I linked falls under
independence of the author
, I would think. Is there some connection between Supermarket News journalist Barbara Murray and Zupan's Markets that I don't know about?talk) 20:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)]
- The article I linked falls under
- Fails
- Delete - according to the WP:SIRS coverage needed to support a standalone article does not seem to be available at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 17:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete This is a company therefore GNG/HighKing++ 11:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. Part of the problem appears to be that the article currently overfocuses on the Portland grocery stores owned by Zupan's Markets. In the 1990s, Zupan's Markets was based in Vancouver, Washington, and operated many other stores in both Washington and Oregon, including Food World and Food Pavilion stores. The 1994 opening of the Food World in Cascade Park to much fanfare (as a Costco-like store without membership with rollerskating staff...in the midst of a grocery workers' strike), followed by its closure one year later and subsequent sale to Safeway, is interesting and well covered by the business section of local newspapers. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Which means it still appears to be of hyper-local interest. Do you have any independent, reliable, significant source that is not local? per WP:NCORP you would suggest as notability supporting pillars? These hello and goodbye announcements are ok for confirming closure and opening but they're not contributing anything to asserting notability. Graywalls (talk) 04:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)]
- Good find!, thanks for sharing. This entry should be expanded with more detail about Food World and Food Pavilion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Routine coverage of local franchise openings and business closures are promotional aspect. I can't access the second source ("This clipping has been marked as not public") but it appears to be local coverage from The Columbian. Beccaynr (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)]
- Agree to disagree ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Which means it still appears to be of hyper-local interest. Do you have any independent, reliable, significant source that is not local? per
- Comment Cielquiparle and Another Believer have added additional content and citations to bulk up the article. I urge those who voted "Delete" to have another look at it and see if that's still their stance. Constablequackers (talk) 09:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Constablequackers Don't hold your breath. Up to 47 sources, but I doubt anyone would want to revisit or take the time to put together a source assessment table. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Well, hang in there. The deletionists and overthinkers around here have discouraged me from working on no less than a dozen Portland related pages. Wanted to create a few, update others, etc. It's a total drag. Such a shame that so many editors are more interested in being pedantic and bickering over incredibly minute nuances of wiki-regulations with the passion of a lawyer in the final chapters of a John Grisham novel instead of, you know, sharing knowledge with the world, which is what this site is supposed to be all about. Unbelievably tedious. Constablequackers (talk) 10:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment after additional content and citation added. We're now up to 36 references in the article and not a single one provides in-depth independent content about the company. For example, this article from The Columbian was added, described as an "in-depth article interviewing ~6 sources" but equally acknowledging the sources are "all connected in some way". So none of this is Independent Content, fails ORGIND. None of the stuff about openings/closings is relevant for the purposes of establishing notability as those articles inevitably all rely, entirely, on the announcement/PR from the company and therefore has no Independent Content, also failing ORGIND. If Another Believer or Cielquiparle believe there are a couple of particular sources which meet NCORP, please point them out here and also point out which pages/paragraphs in particular they believe meets NCORP. HighKing++ 11:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)]
- No thanks. While I disagree with Beccaynr's analysis, I am tired of the AfD game where deletionists (too often a handful of the same editors) refuse to change their NCORP vote no matter how many quality journalistic sources are provided. Waste of my time. Happy editing! ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think the advice to content creators from the closer of the Seattle Coffee Works AfD may be helpful to consider here:
it doesn't help save an article to include every mention of the article subject. Quality, not quantity helps both those wanting to preserve an article and those who are advocating Delete.
Beccaynr (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)- @Beccaynr It's not cool to discourage article improvement at AfD, even if you believe it's futile. I have admired your work in improving numerous articles at AfD. It takes a while to sift through tons of coverage like Zupan's Markets has over its nearly 50 years of operation. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- I appreciate your follow up, not a battleground.And I also admire your article improvement work, and think your comment below is an example of collaborative AfD participation (e.g. identifying sources for evaluation) that can help further develop the discussion. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)]
- @WP:WALLOFTEXT. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)]
- The link is not presented as though it is about the other article, it is about the discussion. My hope is for this discussion to collaboratively focus on the sources, guidelines, and policies that apply to this article. Beccaynr (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- @
- I appreciate your follow up,
- @Beccaynr It's not cool to discourage article improvement at AfD, even if you believe it's futile. I have admired your work in improving numerous articles at AfD. It takes a while to sift through tons of coverage like Zupan's Markets has over its nearly 50 years of operation. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think the advice to content creators from the closer of the Seattle Coffee Works AfD may be helpful to consider here:
- No thanks. While I disagree with Beccaynr's analysis, I am tired of the AfD game where deletionists (too often a handful of the same editors) refuse to change their NCORP vote no matter how many quality journalistic sources are provided. Waste of my time. Happy editing! ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'll add that if Another Believer could genuinely point to any part of the so-called "quality journalistic sources" which met NCORP, he would do so. Inundating an article with references might show "coverage" but doesn't establish notability. We've all the same objectives - to ensure WP has high-quality well-sourced articles on notable topics. This isn't the Yellow Pages or some sort of alternative marketing platform. HighKing++ 23:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)]
- You shouldn't assume I'm avoiding jumping through hoops. I'm just choosing not to jump through all the hoops because I don't care enough. There's a difference. I've cast my vote and I'm moving on. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'll add that if Another Believer could genuinely point to any part of the so-called "quality journalistic sources" which met NCORP, he would do so. Inundating an article with references might show "coverage" but doesn't establish notability. We've all the same objectives - to ensure WP has high-quality well-sourced articles on notable topics. This isn't the Yellow Pages or some sort of alternative marketing platform.
- Delete lean towards deletion of the page; no sufficient reliable sources + the lack of general notability. --Rodgers V (talk) 12:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: Per their Talk page, the above user was blocked indefinitely for promotional editing. Cielquiparle (talk) 23:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
off-topic
|
---|
|
- Keep per WP:IDONTLIKEIT and you feel that only national chains like Safeway, Albertson's, Trader Joe's, and Whole Foods deserve Wikipedia articles, there is nothing I can do; but if your objection is to the gushingly positive descriptions of Zupan's or the "gentrification" of the food industry, I've tried to include some critique of Zupan's to balance out the otherwise rather favorable descriptions of the business. (But I fully expect it might not stand.) Cielquiparle (talk) 12:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)]
- The objections have nothing to do with IDONTLIKEIT or requiring "gushingly positive descriptions" and it isn't helpful to include comments such as these. We require a minimum of two references which have in-depth "Independent Content". That's it. Nothing more and nothing less. None of those references come even close. The "Shock Departure" tells us almost nothing about the company other than they're a supermarket that didn't renew their lease. It certainly does not "assess the impact" of anything, it includes commentary from dismayed locals. Nor does one article which you've described as "significant coverage" concerning being cited four times for selling alcohol to minors include anything resembling significant in-depth "Independent Content" about the company. HighKing++ 21:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)]
- I'll reply here to HighKing++ 11:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)]
- @HighKing Agree (with the last part). Trying to step away. Only keep coming back since pinged. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)]
- @
- I'll reply here to
- Agree to disagree. Cielquiparle (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- The most in-depth articles on WP:TL;DR. We differ in opinion. Let other people make up their own minds. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)]
- The most in-depth articles on
- The objections have nothing to do with IDONTLIKEIT or requiring "gushingly positive descriptions" and it isn't helpful to include comments such as these. We require a minimum of two references which have in-depth "Independent Content". That's it. Nothing more and nothing less. None of those references come even close. The "Shock Departure" tells us almost nothing about the company other than they're a supermarket that didn't renew their lease. It certainly does not "assess the impact" of anything, it includes commentary from dismayed locals. Nor does one article which you've described as "significant coverage" concerning being cited four times for selling alcohol to minors include anything resembling significant in-depth "Independent Content" about the company.
Source review
|
---|
As to new sources presented:
|
As to the suggested ATD, while
- @Beccaynr:, I too consiedered ATD, but with company articles, unless there's a parent company, finding the appropriate merge target isn't always possible. Graywalls (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- @WP:ATD. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)]
- @content forking to]
game the system toretain a CORP article that may not pass NCORP Graywalls (talk) 07:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)- @WP:AGF. It is a sincere attempt to offer a solution for those that think Zupan's Markets should be deleted. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)]
- @Graywalls To confirm, if the article is merged and redirected to John Zupan, it should not be retained in its full form. Another alternative would be to merge and redirect to John and Mike Zupan, but in my experience, many editors struggle with the existence of double biographies even when they are siblings or married couples. In this case, it would be a BLP-plus-non-BLP. IMO of the two, John Zupan seems more notable (plus he's the eponymous founder). Cielquiparle (talk) 09:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- I personally don't agree with creating an "anchor" bio article to be used to retain a company article that may not pass NCORP. I am also not certain John Zupan merits meets ]
- @Graywalls As I said in an above paragraph, I'm OK with redirecting John Zupan to Zupan's Markets. Maybe there is no need to have two separate articles. I just thought it was helpful to "see" it so we could decide accordingly. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- I personally don't agree with creating an "anchor" bio article to be used to retain a company article that may not pass NCORP. I am also not certain John Zupan merits meets ]
- @Graywalls To confirm, if the article is merged and redirected to John Zupan, it should not be retained in its full form. Another alternative would be to merge and redirect to John and Mike Zupan, but in my experience, many editors struggle with the existence of double biographies even when they are siblings or married couples. In this case, it would be a BLP-plus-non-BLP. IMO of the two, John Zupan seems more notable (plus he's the eponymous founder). Cielquiparle (talk) 09:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- @
- @
- @
@Cielquiparle:I have looked at your addition about plastic bag. This is tangential mention of Zupan's and pure fluff of no real substance.Graywalls (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Graywalls Yes exactly! I wasn't putting it forward as evidence of in-depth coverage. I was simply presenting the TIME magazine mention as evidence that it's not true that no one has ever heard of Zupan's Markets outside Portland. While the Belmont store was still open, many travel guides (and the travel section of the Arizona Daily Star for example) specifically mentioned it as the "real location" of that Portlandia TV sketch too. By itself, it wouldn't justify keeping the article, no. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
- .
The book notes: "Founded by the late John Zupan in 1975, Zupan's is a locally-and family-owned market that serves Portland's food-loving community. Likened to farmers markets, Zupan's focuses on quality, selling everything from the best meats and wines to the freshest produce, baked goods, gourmet deli products, specialty foods, flowers and more. Touting a unique grocery shopping experience, Zupan's stores are meant to indulge the senses, inviting customers to see, smell, taste and learn. Regularly scheduled beer, wine and cheese tastings are among customer favorites. Full-service floral departments (Burnside, Boones Ferry and Macadam locations) have beautiful fresh-cut flowers year-round and provide custom design, wedding and event services. The deli features handmade, home-style items with grab-n-go meals, gourmet sandwiches and catering. Bakery items are delivered from 35 of the best bakeries around the Portland area."
- Fehrenbacher, Gretchen (2003-06-15). "Fresh Thinking: Michael Zupan takes his parents' Vancouver-based grocery chain to new level". The Columbian. Archived from the original on 2024-03-26. Retrieved 2024-03-26.
The source contains quotes from the subject but there is sufficient independent reporting to amount to significant coverage. The article notes: "Zupan's, with headquarters in Vancouver by no means has the lock on specialty groceries and prepared foods. Among the most prominent are Nature's, Whole Food Markets and New Seasons. Trader Joe's, ... Zupan's stores are 15,000 to 20,000 square feet, compared to the 40,000 to 50,000 square feet of the traditional supermarket. ... At one time, there were eight stores, including one store in Battle Ground and two in Vancouver with one on Mill Plain Boulevard and another in Salmon Creek. They were operated as Zupan's Food Pavilion, and, in the case of the Mill Plain store, Food World. Today, there are no Clark County locations. The first two stores in Vancouver were bought in 1989 and sold in the mid-90s."
- Giegerich, Andy (1999-09-17). "Hero or villain? Zupan's blunders ignite passions". ProQuest 225384612.
The article notes: "Imagine the bustling, hip Southeast Belmont business district without Zupan's Market. Belmont residents don't want to think about it. But it could happen if the Oregon Liquor Control Commission, the Portland City Council and the Portland Police Bureau revoke the store's liquor license."
reliable sources to allow Zupan's Markets to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".] - .
- Comment As you well know by now, "sufficient coverage" is not the criteria for establishing notability. None of those meet the Primary Criteria once you apply the tests (which you ignore) outlined in HighKing++ 12:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)]
- Per WP:NCORP. (I accept that travel guides tend to be somewhat problematic though.) Cielquiparle (talk) 14:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC)]
- I don't think anyone is suggesting NCORP says "every piece of SIGCOV we are counting for notability must be totally comprehensive about every aspect of the company." In my first comment, I mentioned NCORP has source assessment standards to help apply the second prong of the Wikipedia is not advertising and promotion; the three sources listed above all seem to be contrary to NOT policy - a promotional guide, a local feature substantially based on promotion by people connected to the company, and a promotional publication with a substantial focus on what the company's attorney says about an upcoming local administrative hearing. Beccaynr (talk) 14:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)]
- I don't think anyone is suggesting NCORP says "every piece of SIGCOV we are counting for notability must be totally comprehensive about every aspect of the company." In my first comment, I mentioned NCORP has source assessment standards to help apply the second prong of the
- Per
- Comment As you well know by now, "sufficient coverage" is not the criteria for establishing notability. None of those meet the Primary Criteria once you apply the tests (which you ignore) outlined in
- 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.