Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agway

Agway

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

Doesn't appear to be a notable corporation/brand. News report showing a bankruptcy filing, other incidental mentions. Languished with a speedy tag for 36+ hours. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As we all know, we aren't !voting on the condition of the article at any time, but whether there are sources available to write a full article. There are more than 20 incoming links from other articles and 16K articles in GNews on the business entity under the Agway name, there are also plenty of articles on the pre-merger business names. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major airlines and Chrysler Corporation have filed for bankruptcy in the past. Bankruptcy does not make a firm non-notable. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-17186111.html can provide one good reference as an example of the size of Agway's business, a four year multi-million dollar (1995 dollar value) contract for IT services. Agway is definitely notable. Doc2234 (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there are good reliable sources that satisfy WP:SIGCOV, I will be happy to withdraw. Your example, however, is a press release, which doesn't qualify. And I wasn't using "bankruptcy" as a reason for not being notable, I was saying that it was one of the primary sources found, which alone is not a valid source to prove notability. My job isn't to prove it isn't notable anyway, as you can't prove a negative. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reference in the highbeam list of articles would be the Buffalo newspaper article, not the PR News article. I can see where that isn't clear. Doc2234 (talk) 10:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, weakly. This is an agricultural business that offers feed for livestock and poultry, as well as seed, fertilizers, and herbicides. I am not sure that all of the GNews hits are about the same business; some suggested that they were running a grocery store, others were selling pavement sealants, and it may be that other businesses are using this term as their trademark. I also didn't see anything that suggested that this business had significant effects on history, culture, or technology in the first several pages I read. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Between the Bankruptcy (AP), a chemical plant they built (WSJ), coverage of their supply chain model in a book, and some possible paywalled merger coverage I think WP:CORP has been satisfied. Qrsdogg (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Associated Press article cited in the footnotes indicates that the company lost nearly $100 million in a single fiscal year. This is, in short, a BIG company going through a newsworthy bankruptcy. The fact that it is a cooperative venture adds to potential pool of interested readers. Adequate sourcing available to constitute "notability" in Wikipedia terms. Carrite (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Smerdis of Tlön" has a point: many of those articles in GNews are for "Agway Petroleum". Either that's a different company, or the article has got the company description wrong. Perchloric (talk) 00:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The AP story that I linked to above lists a couple Agway Energy businesses as subsidiaries of Agway International, so I would lean toward the latter explanation. Qrsdogg (talk) 01:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'm prepared to believe that an article of this name deserves to exist on Wikipedia. And at least the current stub isn't corporate spam. But as Smerdis says it really ought to include mention of some significant impact of this company to establish its notability.Perchloric (talk) 03:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep certainly a notable brand. The sources are sufficient to show it. If the article needs to be clarified, this is done by fixing it, not deleting it. " significant effects on history, culture, or technology " is not the Wikipedia criterion for inclusion. And it is certainly the job of those wanting deletion to show failure of notability. We do not delete content without evidence. DGG ( talk ) 08:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DGG appears to not understand WP:N. Failure to provide evidence of notability is exactly the reason for deleting an article. Just read the first paragraph of WP:N. Perchloric (talk) 01:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]