Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ridley's Family 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ridley's Family Markets

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

Only six hits on Google News, none of which are non-trivial. Fails WP:CORP. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another article I've forgotten about, yes it's just a local business--Caldorwards4 (talk) 02:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Keep per sources found below --Caldorwards4 (talk) 22:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as G7. Only other edits not by Caldor are trivial. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I guess - strictly speaking it fails WP:N, so I guess that's the end of the matter. Seems a shame to get rid of a harmless article about a chain that almost certainly has some local notability, though. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (Note: I removed the G7 speedy deletion template because of the long existence of the article and the past attention by editors other than its original author.) Based on what I found in a quick web search, I believe that someone knowledgable about the region could find sources and build this into a decent article. I found a lot more than 6 hits in Google News, although I couldn't access most of the articles without subscribing to the newspaper or paying a fee. Most hits were from the Idaho Statesman. The articles were mostly about new stores opening and existing stores closing, but typically a business like this one will have received more in-depth coverage in regional media at some point. The company has stores in 4 U.S. states and says it employs about 600 people, so it appears to be regionally important. I did add a reference to a business directory listing to the article. --Orlady (talk) 14:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Added: This is a link to a trade journal article about the company. It requires a subscription... --Orlady (talk) 14:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Also, there's a national-interest news story involving Ridley's -- about store employees who were passing counterfeit bills (but I can't successfully insert the links here). --Orlady (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's only one secondary source so far, beyond the one that won't link. I don't think it's enough. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article actually cites two secondary sources now: the Manta.com and a short article in Supermarket News. The longer Supermarket News article that I found (noted above) requires a subscription. As for the counterfeiting story, here's a link that is not a Google cache and does not include formatting that gets scrambled when posted here: http://www.allbusiness.com/crime-law-enforcement-corrections/corrections-parole/12931770-1.html In addition, ~~I found Supermarket News item~~ I found a story about Ridley's winning an award for Global Electronic Marketing and I added it to the article. --Orlady (talk) 16:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still doesn't quite establish its notability. Keep working. Also it's in danger of reading like an advertisement. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. —Orlady (talk) 01:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MuZemike 19:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per evidence of notability established by Orlady. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found. A 15-store chain seems significant in terms of wikipedia (3 locations would be a closer call -- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lee's_Marketplace). --Milowent (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - this one is brderline for me. There are only two sources referenced in the articel that support notability. And I found this article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:36, 9 October 2009 (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.