Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GroceryRun


 * 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 delete. Black Kite (talk) 10:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

GroceryRun

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable company. Nothing significant but another startup company. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a Startup directory. 1000s of startups happens every day. Just another one. Notability required repeated significant coverage by media as well as significance in itself. building Wikiepdia page for their publicity. covered mostly by Startup blogs not the notable media. Popular media used only for Press or news for company. Nothing significant coverage by these media. Once in a lifetime coverage. Nothing notable to be here. Merely for misleading. Thousands of online stores are there. Wikipedia is not store directory. Light2021 (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Hardly "another startup company"; reasonably significant and has been around a while now ago. It has plenty of coverage in mainstream newspaper sources - this seems like a cookie-cutter nomination in which the user tried to push their particular ideological barrow without actually checking the specific sources. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 01:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Citing a Google search isn't enough, you need to check the sources. Churnalism is unconvincing. Also, personal attacks in deletion discussions are less than convincing - David Gerard (talk) 07:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If a nominator claims that there are only "startup blogs" and not "notable media" covering the subject, and then five minutes in Google News turns up a bunch of stories in the Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian and other major metropolitan newspapers, I feel like it's reasonable to assume that the nominator probably didn't do their homework. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 11:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak keep Some good depth-of-coverage in a couple of Australian news sites and lots of news hits, but not a slam dunk for WP:GNG either. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. The sources are good examples of advertorials they merely quote the company, which is just one of them any copycat companies in this area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) per this.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- wholly unremarkable; does not rise to the level of encyclopedia notability. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete A google search produces few results about this company, with the news coverage being highly limited and lightweight in nature. There seems to be no reason to think I've missed anything: this is a small internet company. Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete The coverage is essentially a bunch of brief coverage in the context of other companies of a similar nature. Nothing indepth about the company itself. Also WP:TOOSOON. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * (Update) SwisterTwister's analysis of the sources is convincing. They are thinly redressed PR. Also, some of the sources presented for example
 * QRCodePress doesn't seem reliable - it seems to be a self published blog which claims to have an "editor".
 * The Lifehacker piece is one of the most blatant pieces of churnalism I have seen. With stuff like As with most bargain sites, there are good deals to be had, but you need to consider whether you would buy that product otherwise, and whether you'll save enough to offset the postage charges. 200g of Nescafe Gold Blend for $7.95 (less than half the regular price) is definitely a deal I could be tempted by (though as it happens, that one has already sold out this week). If you're already an organised shopper and know what your regulars usually cost, this could be a useful addition.
 * That leaves the sources from SMH which alone are not enough to pass WP:NCORP. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - Unremarkable company and not enough coverage. -- Dane 2007  talk 20:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic   Nightfury  07:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Do not confuse stub status with non-notabiity. Worthy stub article, neutrally written, sourced.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This comment removed per this. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from personal attacks and limit comments to the matter at hand.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not see any personal attack made on you. " The company is just not notable" above ? Light2021 (talk) 14:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree. Absolutely no personal attack whatsoever., referencing an accepted essay and commenting on notability is exactly what is meant to happen here. You will have to evidentially prove the point I'm afraid. Muffled Pocketed  14:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's move on--I've discussed with the editor and I don't think there was any bad faith, just confusion. I took it as picking a fight.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The article notes: "Perth shoppers have led a surge of interest in online discount grocery buying, spending at least twice as much per capita on a new dedicated website. More than $1.5 million worth of non-perishable groceries was bought in just the first two days of groceryrun.com.au's much-talked-about launch last Wednesday. ... About $225,000 of that came from residents in Perth and surrounding areas, according to the website's co-founder Gabby Leibovich.  ...  The website - owned by the operators of group buying websites Scoopon and Catch of the Day - is the first in the Australian market to offer discounted grocery items such as pharmaceuticals, cleaning products and non-perishable food.  It promises discounts of 50-80 per cent on 200 items each week.  But its niche is to only offer the products for 48 hours from 10am Wednesdays, which Mr Leibovich said allowed the company to avoid poor deals that wasted customers' time." <li> The article notes: "Discount online grocery retailing has been a fairly quiet space in Australia (the two major chains aside), but competition is starting to increase. GroceryRun.com.au offers discounts on a bunch of brand-name goods, but only sells them two days a week. GroceryRun.com.au has some obvious similarities with Supermarketdeals.com.au, which we’ve looked at recently, including the emphasis on brand names and the $11 flat shipping charge to anywhere in Australia. And just as Supermarketdeals.com.au is run by an existing online retailer (DealsDirect), GroceryRun.com.au is from the founder of CatchOfTheDay. The unusual feature of GroceryRun.com.au is that you can only order from the site on a Wednesday or a Thursday. That’s likely to create more of a rush on the cheapest items, but the unpredictable nature of the specials means you wouldn’t be able to use the site for your entire grocery run, despite the name."</li> <li> The article notes: "GroceryRun.com, an online grocery store, has just announced the availability of a new mobile commerce application for iPhone and iPad users. This launch has aligned itself with the strongest growth that GroceryRun has recorded in a single quarter. The website currently receives approximately 15,000 on a weekly basis, and has seen a significant demand from suppliers who have been rushing to add their offerings to the site. This has been bolstered by the notable shift that supermarkets are making in order to place their primary support on their own home store brands as opposed to promoting those from other companies." There is editorial oversight according to http://www.qrcodepress.com/about/authors/WebCite.</li> <li> The article notes: "A NEW breed of online grocery retailer is not only slashing grocery bills, but giving food manufacturers a second chance to sell things the big supermarket chains will not touch. GroceryRun.com.au - the grocery arm of the daily deals website CatchoftheDay - yesterday joined a growing number of online grocery stores, including SupermarketDeals and OffYourTrolley, offering non-perishable grocery products at up to 50 per cent off. The grocery e-tailer will operate for 48 hours, Wednesday to Friday, every week, and will sell between 200 and 300 discounted products, from coffee to cleaning products for a flat delivery fee of $11. GroceryRun co-founder Gabby Leibovich says one of the reasons it works is because it acts as a clearing house of sorts for suppliers left with excess stock because supermarket chains have cancelled orders, deleted products or won't accept stock nearing its use-by date. 'We approach suppliers with the simple message of 'what do you have in your warehouse that you want to clear?' says Mr Leibovich. ... On one occasion when GroceryRun was trying its discount groceries on its CatchoftheDay site it sold 330,000 Ferrero Rocher chocolates in 48 hours. Michael Rajch, a director of the confectionary group Eversweet, which also distributes other leading confectionary brands, says online grocery stores such as GroceryRun have given suppliers other alternatives outside the big supermarkets."</li> <li> The article notes: "Groceryrun.com.au, an offshoot of CatchoftheDay.com.au, offers up to 200 discounted products from well-known brands and charges a flat shipping fee for deliveries anywhere in Australia. But it comes with a few catches. There will be no perishable items. The products won't always be the same and might not be available from one week to the next, and nor will customers be able to shop whenever the need arises. The deals will only be available on Wednesdays and Thursdays. The launch follows a one-year trial of grocery sales at Catch of the Day that netted sales of $1 million a month through two days of sales and is a grab for a piece of the $80 billion a year Australian grocery market. ... Catch of the Day's growth is being funded by the $80 million of private equity raised in June through the investment of such groups as James Packer's Consolidated Press Holdings and Tiger Global. The group, which also owns group buying site Scoopon, says it grew 100 per cent in 2010-11, racking up revenues of $120 million."</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow GroceryRun to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 06:18, 26 October 2016 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * Note the such blatant triviality as:


 * It promises discounts of 50-80 per cent on 200 items each week. But its niche is to only offer the products for 48 hours from 10am Wednesdays (this is literally advertising where, why and when the company will be available for clients)
 * Take the next one:


 * offers up to 200 discounted products from well-known brands and charges a flat shipping fee for deliveries anywhere in Australia. But it comes with a few catches. There will be no perishable items. The products won't always be the same and might not be available from one week to the next, and nor will customers be able to shop whenever the need arises. The deals will only be available on Wednesdays and Thursdays and:
 * A NEW breed of online grocery retailer is not only slashing grocery bills, but giving food manufacturers a second chance to sell things the big supermarket chains will not touch....It promises discounts....GroceryRun offers discounts on special items two days a week (blatant advertising about the company's own words)
 * We literally cannot take any of this company-supplied advertising as actual substance and coverage, when it cares to name and number such specifics as the "amount of chocolates sold today....current orders of this week...."operate for 48 hours, Wednesday to Friday, every week, and will sell between 200 and 300 discounted products, from coffee to cleaning products for a flat delivery fee of $11"...."current trials and funding"...."You can only order Wednesday or Thursday!"
 * Once we literally start taking such blatant advertising when it's clearly the company's own words, we are severely damned because we could not take matters seriously. We cannot actually come close to say it's significant because it's only that in the company's own eyes! SwisterTwister   talk  06:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That is factual information that the editors and journalists of The Sydney Morning Herald considered of interest to their readers. It does not make the articles unreliable. Cunard (talk) 06:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's thinly-disguised PR material of little use in an encyclopedia IMO. It also appears to have been published on a section of the SMH's website focused on spruiking small businesses, rather than the serious business news sections. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as I apparently had not commented for deletion yet although I've been heavily watching this article since, explaining my analysis above; as for the article, literally everything is simply PR advertising and the Delete votes are concurrent and exact with the concerns, showing how this is clearly only existing to advertise what the company is and the hopes of clients and investors. The sheer 2 advertising-only accounts also explain this therefore there's nothing we can take as honest non-advertising contributions or information. SwisterTwister   talk  07:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment -- the sources offered at this AfD are not convincing, and are filled with promotion and / or aspirations of the company, as in "promises discounts"; "well known brands"; "new breed of retailer"; "much-talked-about launch" etc. The coverage relates to launch publicity and does not rise to the level of WP:CORPDEPTH. WP:TOOSOON & WP:NOTNEWS apply as well. Let's see if it's indeed a "new breed" as promised and then create an article. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is procedural vote, to balance User:Paulmcdonald's "keep" vote; User:Paulmcdonald's behavior here has been so egregiously bad -- browbeating and implicitly threatening a user on her talk page, for absolutely zero cause, for an anodyne comment made here appears to be an attempt to chill discussion, and we simply can't have that. Delete the article now on principle. Herostratus (talk) 19:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Response there was some confusion on my part that we cleared up. But are you honestly saying that you are taking the position of delete because you don't like me?  That's not a reason to delete.  If you believe my behavior was that bad, please feel free to discuss it with me on my talk page or if you like you can take any of the suggested actions at Disruptive editing.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:16, 11 November 2016 (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.