Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central Grocers Cooperative


 * 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. Deor (talk) 13:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Central Grocers Cooperative

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not seem to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Has been tagged for notability for over 6 years, unresolved. Boleyn (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I de-PRODded this because of the extensive Google books results. I wanted this to get a full consideration.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - The only reference is an insignificant 2008 reference in a trade rag.--Rpclod (talk) 03:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as no evidence of any notability. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  00:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: 7th largest cooperative in the United States with over $2 billion in annual consolidated sales.  Seems to be a significant and notable concern.--Milowent • hasspoken  03:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 *  Delete  to Keep per conversation below. - Although makes a good point of its communal and economic stature, one would still have to conceded that it has very little coverage to substantiate the claim other than this one article. I would still have to go with the deletion simply because sources are very limited at best.--Canyouhearmenow 11:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I highly doubt that is the only source one could find, based on my past experience with similar AfDs.--Milowent • hasspoken 12:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I did find other articles, however, they are not what I would call proper third party sources. These are sign in and blog pages that could be edited by the source itself. The other articles I found are WP:Mirror articles that say pretty much what has already been included here on Wikipedia, or they ape the same thing as the article you quoted. That is where my hesitations lays.--Canyouhearmenow 12:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I've just added four cites rather quickly, two to Chicago Tribune article and one to the Chicago Sun-Times, the two primary papers in the area. And one to a 1932 article in the National Grocers Bulletin.  It would be shocking if a company that does over $2 billion in annual sales, and started 95 years ago, was not notable.--Milowent • hasspoken  12:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Is anyone a digital plus member at the Chicago Tribune site? I can see via pqarchiver that they have many articles on this entity from prior to 1988 (e.g., ), but I'm not a subscriber.--Milowent • hasspoken  13:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I did not find those articles on my search, Good Job! For tha reason I agree that this is a notable subject and am hereby changing my vote to Keep.Canyouhearmenow 13:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate it. Sorry if I was being cranky, btw.  I'm getting old-editor-itis at AfD sometimes.--Milowent • hasspoken  13:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * After all the time I have edited on here I feel the same way. I simply go into search mode and sometimes I become way to straight forward focused and don't look at the vehicles coming at me from the sides. I appreciate the work you did to bring out the sources and to change the direction on this AfD. Let me know if I can ever help you.Canyouhearmenow 16:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Now willing to concur with Milowent.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:49, 11 September 2014 (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.