Zupan's Markets: Fails WP:NCORP Coverages are all routine and hyper-local.  Graywalls ( talk ) 02:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 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) [ reply ] Comment : I found this source , which shows coverage that's more than just hyper-local.  Left guide ( talk ) 04:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This screams sensationalism.  Like "10 best affordable tequila"... the best US made tofu... type stuff.  That falls far short of Wikipedia:ORGDEPTH and 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) [ reply ] The source looks reliable in accordance with WP:RS criteria, particularly given its editorial policies , thus fulfilling all of the WP:GNG requirements.  Also, that publication only chose 12 businesses across the whole country (some of the others are based in Florida and Michigan for example), so it clearly bestows this business with some sort of significance.  Do you have any concrete evidence that would discredit the quality of the source?  Vague unsupported claims like this screams sensationalism wouldn't be helpful.  Lastly, the article creator's edit history has no bearing on the notability of the topic.  Left guide ( talk ) 08:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 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) [ reply ] 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 indiscriminate source , but this is far different; it's choosing these 12 among thousands in the U.S. Unless there's evidence that this is a WP:COISOURCE (which doesn't appear to be applicable here), I don't see how this source wouldn't count towards notability.  In any case, we can wait for input from others.  Left guide ( talk ) 10:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] " 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 example of trivial coverage according to the 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) [ reply ] @ Left guide I would say it's comparable to something like these 1 and 2 .  "Example of trivial coverage" mentioned above describes it well.  Please have a look if you haven't had a chance to see their response.  Graywalls ( talk ) 21:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 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) [ reply ] 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) [ reply ] 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) [ reply ] Keep .  Coverage is sufficient for WP:GNG .  I also see coverage of Zupan's from Supermarket News (a trade periodical covering the grocers industry).  P-Makoto (she/her) ( talk ) 23:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ P-Makoto : , please refer to WP:TRADES with regard to use of trade magazines for notability purposes.  Graywalls ( talk ) 01:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 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.  P-Makoto (she/her) ( talk ) 02:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Fails WP:ORGIND - none of the information is sourced from persons unconnected with the company (suppliers, customers, partners, etc are all considered "connected").  HighKing ++ 11:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 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?  P-Makoto (she/her) ( talk ) 20:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - according to the notability guideline, WP:GNG is not the only consideration, and we should also examine the What Wikipedia is not policy; the WP:NCORP guideline incudes a focus on a common issue of advertising and promotion in company articles, and assists with an evaluation of sources by outlining generally higher requirements for sources that are used to establish notability than for sources that are allowed as acceptable references within an article .  Regardless of editor intent, sources related to companies can tend to be promotional, and if an article is primarily built from such sources and lacks the significant coverage described in the WP:NCORP guideline, it can be excluded according to the notability guideline and WP:NOT policy.  For example, this article includes several bizjournals.com sources - which is American City Business Journals , a source that describes itself as "the premier media platform for companies strategically targeting business decision-makers," so this does not appear to be the type of independent content that helps support company notability.  There are also several news reports related to the death of the founder; announcements of store openings and closings and products ( examples of trivial coverage ); several reports about donating food boxes (see WP:ORGTRIV ); and references to various books (cited without page numbers) used to support limited content in the article.  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) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  01:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This is a company therefore GNG/ WP:NCORP guidelines apply.  I concur with Beccaynr's analysis above.  In order to establish notability, references must meet both WP:NCORP and WP:ORGIND (among others) and nothing I can find appears to do so.  HighKing ++ 11:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 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) [ reply ] 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) [ reply ] 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:AUD and 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) [ reply ] 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) [ reply ] Routine coverage of local franchise openings and business closures are examples of trivial coverage according to the WP:NCORP guideline, and the first source also appears to be substantially dependent on statements from the store spokesman, e.g. what he says about the timing, his expectation for turnout, his description of the concept, his mention about commercial accounts, and his general promotion of the store; while some of this source could be used to expand the article, it does not seem to help support notability , including because of the 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) [ reply ] Agree to disagree --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 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) [ reply ] @ 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) [ reply ] 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) [ reply ] 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) [ reply ] 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) [ reply ] 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) [ reply ] @ 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) [ reply ] I appreciate your follow up, Cielquiparle , because my intention is not to discourage article improvement at AfD; I linked to the Seattle Coffee Works AfD as a way to echo and emphasize HighKing 's request for SIRS coverage to be identified in this discussion, because in that past AfD, it did take a long while to sift through the sources that continued to be added during the discussion. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask editors who are improving an article and advocating keep during an AfD to identify multiple sources to support the article according to the NCORP guideline. I think it is unreasonable to add dozens of sources , suggest notability-supporting coverage is somewhere in the midst of the additions, and other participants should review all of the new sources to determine whether they agree with this assertion of notability. These discussions are collaborative, 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) [ reply ] @ Beccaynr Per WP:WHATABOUTX , linking to other discussions as though they are somehow indicative of policy is discouraged. Each article needs to be considered on its own merits. Frankly I am disappointed to see so much WP:WALLOFTEXT . Cielquiparle ( talk ) 15:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 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) [ reply ] 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) [ reply ] 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) [ reply ] 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) [ reply ] Note: Per their Talk page, the above user was blocked indefinitely for promotional editing. Cielquiparle ( talk ) 23:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] off-topic Striking comment by blocked editor. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Another Believer , what is the guideline or policy basis for striking the comment and !vote? Beccaynr ( talk ) 20:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I thought this was common at AfD. Feel free to remove the strike. Who cares. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:GNG and WP:NCORP and WP:HEY . I actually agree with a lot of the analysis above, poking holes in various corporate press release-driven media coverage as sources establishing notability, although I think some of the categorical statements are too broad brush and extreme. Obviously this article and the sources cited have changed a lot over the course of the discussion, and by now it's clear that Zupan's Markets are not "just" an obscure family-owned business that no one has ever heard of outside of Portland. In fact, it got a lot of nationwide media attention in 2012 when it was the location for the "No Grocery Bag" sketch on Portlandia , and was even mentioned in TIME magazine . Going back to the 1990s, Zupan's Markets' practice of offering fresh fruit samples to customers was considered unusual (and "exciting"), earning it a favorable mention in Supermarket News .  In terms of independent analysis of Zupan's Markets, that seeks to provide a "balanced" view, I would point to the 2017 Oregon Business article , "Zupan's departure dismays local businesses"; it assesses the impact of Zupan's Markets in the Belmont district over time as a catalyst for mixed-use development in a high-poverty neighborhood , and includes the opinion of other businesses in the neighborhood, with zero commentary from Zupan's.  Another piece of significant coverage that seeks to take an independent, balanced view of Zupan's Markets is the 1999 Business Journal article "Hero or villain? Zupan's blunders ignite passions"; although it includes quotes from John Zupan and his lawyer, it also includes other quotes from the Portland City Council and the Oregon Liquor Control Commission.  If this is a case of 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) [ reply ] 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) [ reply ] I'll reply here to Cielquiparle 's comments below so as not to mess up the formatting and subsequent discussion. In a nutshell, you're trying to dominate the discussion, repeating the same sources but not materially addressing the criticism, instead throwing shade at editors who point out why those sources fail to meet GNG/ WP:NCORP guidelines and accusing them of WP:IDONTLIKEIT or seeking a "Platonic level" of coverage which you say doesn't exist in the real world (despite the vast number of topics that meet the guidelines). This is not helpful to the process. If you genuinely want to "let other people make up their minds", then step back from the discussion yourself. HighKing ++ 11:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ HighKing Agree (with the last part). Trying to step away. Only keep coming back since pinged. Cielquiparle ( talk ) 12:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree to disagree. Cielquiparle ( talk ) 23:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The most in-depth articles on Zupan's Markets include two feature articles: "John Zupan runs grocery business at full throttle" which appeared in the Portland Business Journal in 1996 , and "FRESH THINKING: Michael Zupan takes his parents' Vancouver-based grocery chain to new level" which appeared in The Columbian in Vancouver, Washington, in 2003 ; here is the continuation of that article on Page 2 .  In addition, there are numerous articles about John Zupan and Zupan's Markets after his death in 2011, like "John Zupan, Portland grocery 'maverick,' dies at 66" in The Oregonian in 2011 .  The obvious WP:ATD is to merge or more accurately, split , this article about Zupan's Markets into two biographical articles about John Zupan and Michael Zupan, since the notability threshold for articles about people is much lower than the threshold for organizations.  That said, I do not believe this is the best outcome from a Wikipedia point of view; both individuals are mostly notable in the context of how they ran their family-owned business over a 50-year period, and I still maintain that the article satisfies WP:NCORP on the basis of these and additional articles provided in the earlier Keep paragraph above (for which I deliberately looked for non-feature articles focusing on a specific question about the company that didn't rely heavily on interviews with the founders) and that to dismiss all of it completely in pursuit of a Platonic ideal of coverage that doesn't exist in the real world misses the forest for the trees.  I understand that HighKing and Beccaynr do not agree with this view, so please do not keep repeating that you do not agree and it is not good enough because it only serves to discourage further thoughtful participation in this discussion by other editors due to WP:TL;DR .  We differ in opinion.  Let other people make up their own minds.  Cielquiparle ( talk ) 06:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Additional sources have been identified and an ATD suggested, so in the spirit of a collaborative discussion, and because we operate from a baseline assumption of good faith, including that editors can change their minds based on new evidence and ideas, I considered the sources and the suggested ATD.  Source review As to new sources presented: the TIME magazine mention is not substantial coverage of the company, this is a brief mention in a report about Oregon politics and Portlandia the 1996 mention in Progressive Grocer about having fruit samples is an example listed by a produce merchandiser and is one sentence about Zupan's, so also not substantial coverage the 2017 Oregon Business source is not significant coverage of the company itself , but instead a brief report that seems more focused on the building, the neighborhood, and new development I agree with HighKing that the 1999 Hero or villain?  Zupan's blunders ignite passions source about an upcoming liquor license administrative hearing, with substantial quotes from Zupan's attorney is not substantial coverage to support notability per NCORP; we're not looking for a platonic ideal of coverage, but instead a level of depth and independence to allow us to develop encyclopedic content that is not advertising or a directory entry Eater Seattle quoting a commenter in a brief post about Zupan's is also not significant coverage of the company the 1996 Portland Business Journal is a bizjournals.com source that I discussed in a comment above; a promotional publication, and this source is substantially based on what John Zupan says about himself, what a "Business associate and racing buddy" says, what a close friend of Zupan's says, what Mike Zupan Zupan, etc - not independent content that can support notability the Columbian "Fresh Thinking: Michael Zupan takes his parents' Vancouver-based grocery chain to new level" source is substantially based on statements from Michael Zupan, John Zupan, the landlord of one of the stores, and an architect who works with Zupan's - this is not independent content that can support notability there are several sources related to the crash that killed John Zupan, including related criminal proceedings that do not support notability for the company, and the Oregonian source noted in this discussion is substantially based on quotes from people connected to John Zupan, and has some biographical content - even if this was substantially independent, the company does not inherit notability from an owner.  As to the suggested ATD, while WP:BASIC anticipates significant coverage could be developed by a combination of independent, reliable, secondary sources, this does not seem supported because the same challenge for developing encyclopedic content on this company and biographies of its owners appears to be the limited and often promotional sourcing that is available at this time.  Beccaynr ( talk ) 16:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC) - updated comment to fix typo, expand source review Beccaynr ( talk ) 13:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ 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) [ reply ] @ Graywalls OK, it makes sense that it's difficult to merge to an article that doesn't exist, so I've created the article John Zupan as a possible merge target for consideration per WP:ATD .  Cielquiparle ( talk ) 06:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Cielquiparle : , To me, that seems like content forking to game the system to retain a CORP article that may not pass NCORP Graywalls ( talk ) 07:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Graywalls I would ask that you 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) [ reply ] @ 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) [ reply ] 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 WP:ANYBIO .  I've not put time into investigating.  Graywalls ( talk ) 09:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ 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) [ reply ] @ 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) [ reply ] @ 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) [ reply ] We're not making patties.  No amount of trimmings that can be ground up replaces a large thick piece of steak even though they might be able to make large hamburger patties.  Graywalls ( talk ) 01:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources .  Frank, Gerry (2012).  Gerry Frank's Oregon .  Salem, Oregon: Oregon Guide Book.  p. 71.  ISBN 978-1-879333-23-9 .  Retrieved 2024-03-26 – via Internet Archive .  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".  The Business Journal .  Vol.  16, no. 30.  p. 1.  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."  There is sufficient coverage in 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".  Cunard ( talk ) 10:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 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 WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND , something that has been pointed out to you on multiple occasions in the past.  Of the sources you've listed, the first is a tourist guidebook which includes a summary which has been copied for the most part from Zupan's website at that time , fails ORGIND.  The others have been explained as failing NCORP above.  HighKing ++ 12:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Per WP:ORGIND : For the coverage to be significant, the sources must describe and discuss in some depth the treatment of the employees or major changes in leadership instead of just listing the fact that the corporation employs 500 people or mentioning that John Smith was appointed as the new CEO.  In other words, it's OK if the SIGCOV focuses on a specific aspect of the company, or a specific milestone, or a specific event, as long as it does so in-depth and in a meaningful way.  Nowhere does it say that every piece of SIGCOV we are counting for notability must be totally comprehensive about every aspect of the company.  For this reason, I stand by my original argument that multiple sources exist to satisfy WP:NCORP .  (I accept that travel guides tend to be somewhat problematic though.)  Cielquiparle ( talk ) 14:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 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 notability guideline , specifically that 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) [ 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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus