Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agway


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Agway

 * – ( View AfD View log )

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


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * The first paragraph reads: "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article. Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below." As DGG points out "significant effects on history, culture, or technology" does not appear anywhere in WP:Notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That part's fine. The part that appears to contradict WP:N is his statement "it is certainly the job of those wanting deletion to show failure of notability. We do not delete content without evidence." Failure of notability is an absence of evidence of notability. It is the job of those wishing to keep the article to produce evidence of notability. This is just a special case of the general rule that all statements in a WP article must be verifiably sourced. This includes those that demonstrate notability of the subject. Perchloric (talk) 01:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * To further your observation, you can't prove something is not notable: you can't prove a negative.  Dennis Brown (talk) 01:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactamente. Perchloric (talk) 02:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course you can demonstrate a negative, at least to a very high degree of probability. A formal logical proof is not necessary. Certainly it is possible to show non-notability.  One can systematically examine all sources, and find that all the available mentions are only mentions, or indicate a lack of importance. one can determine that some article does not meet any of the special criteria. One can systematically try to find sources, and show that nothing at all can be found. When I comment at afd , I say to delete for lack of notability quite often. But if the evidence indicates its an important company, I do not say that. DGG ( talk ) 17:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Right. As you say, you need evidence to indicate notability. Failure to find such evidence indicates non-notability. It is the job of those arguing against deletion to provide the evidence. Perchloric (talk) 22:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.