Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SK Foods


 * 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. Per WP:HEY — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

SK Foods

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

WP:COATRACK article that has two sentences that cover the company, which itself is likely not notable. Came from ANI, revdel'ed BLP violations, some which may still exist. "Crimes" seem to fit WP:NEWSPAPER. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;   &copy;  18:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. I can't find anything regarding reliable sources about the company itself, saving some insignificant news items about some people associated with it.  Clear WP:COATRACK issue, no reason to exist otherwise.  -- Jayron  32  18:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite to the neutral point of view. The New York Times said SK was one of the nation's largest tomato processors. Similar statements were made by the Los Angeles Times. The admitted criminal conduct involved bribes to executives at Safeway, one of the largest grocery store chains in the country. I concede that it isn't easy to write neutral, encyclopedic coverage of scandal-plagued businesses, but I conclude that this topic is notable.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  19:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * To be honest, those mentions about size were incidental to the criminal coverage and fail WP:SIGCOV relative to the company itself. None of those articles are actually about the company, they are only about the misc. criminal charges.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  22:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep – The topic has received significant coverage other than about the price-fixing and racketeering charges and conviction of its owner. The topic passes WP:GNG. Here's some sources:
 * Also, SK Foods, Ingomar Packing Co. and Los Gatos Tomato products formed the California Tomato Export Group, which collectively produced over half of the U.S. supply of tomato products at the time of the group's formation in 2005.
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 21:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, SK Foods, Ingomar Packing Co. and Los Gatos Tomato products formed the California Tomato Export Group, which collectively produced over half of the U.S. supply of tomato products at the time of the group's formation in 2005.
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 21:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, SK Foods, Ingomar Packing Co. and Los Gatos Tomato products formed the California Tomato Export Group, which collectively produced over half of the U.S. supply of tomato products at the time of the group's formation in 2005.
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 21:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 21:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * But it fails WP:CORP. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and per WP:CORP. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Passes WP:GNG and WP:CORP. I reject the idea that because the available sources are primarily about the scandal a company has evidently perpetrated that those sources aren't also "about the company". What, do people want to rename the article to something like "The SK Foods bribery and price collusion scandal"? If a company comes to the attention of the media for its alleged crimes that's just as notable as if it were to come to the attention of the media for its takeover bids, its product innovations, or any other result of its business decisions and activities. It's all about the company, imo. Re Dennis' WP:NOTNEWSPAPER suggestion, I can't see that, either. The relevant passage would seem to be, "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." I don't see this as "routine news", and I do see it as beyond the importance and inherent interest of "most newsworthy events". --OhioStandard (talk) 05:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. As of this timestamp, the article bears no resemblance to the page nominated for deletion. Several editors have performed rescue work sufficient for me to offer a keep assertion. I'll concede that some of the sources linked tend to cover Salyer more than the company, but sourcing applied since nomination puts this business well past CORP and certainly past GNG. Per WP:CRIME, an article on the BLP is not appropriate, but an article on the organization is. I tend to concur with User:Ohiostandard's argument above; when the scandal sourcing isn't discounted, the coverage surpasses WP:ROUTINE. BusterD (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2012 (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.