A brief article on a defunct supermarket chain. While the topic is notable, the limited amount of information creates a situation where it is much better put to use in Jumbo (supermarket) gidonb (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose merging, C1000 was its own supermarket chain independent from Jumbo in its own right before the acquisition and it has a long history and was a national supermarket. Just because C1000 became a Jumbo formula doesn't mean that its history stopped being its own thing. Plenty has been written about C1000 to expand the article into something big and detailed, I think that many people refrain from doing so because they don't want to be seen as "a spammer", "COI", and "advertisers", even if the company has been defunct for many years (but that's a whole other discussion). It is better to expand the article with reliably sourced news paper clippings and documentaries than merge it into a company that acquired it. --Donald Trung (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trung, as you say C1000 was its own supermarket. It isn't anymore. My nomination is NOT based on wishful thinking and questionable theories but reacts to the information that enwiki has. I said that there is no problem with the notability of the topic. You agree. After C1000 merged into Jumbo, the C1000 history is contained within the Jumbo history. There needs to be sufficient material NOW for a spinoff. Not potentially in the future. It's as simple as that! gidonb (talk) 20:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

C1000 was created as a pilot shot in 1977, it became an official supermarket in 1981, it was acquired by Jumbo in 2012, and the the C1000 formula was replaced by the Jumbo formula in 2015. So in its 38 (thirty-eight) year long history it has been a part of Jumbo for 3 (three) years. I can expand the stub if necessary, but for most of its history it wasn't a part of Jumbo Supermarkten B.V. --Donald Trung (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trung Conceptually, this is totally wrong. The first question we need to ask ourselves is what is C1000. It is a HISTORY. Between 1981 and 2012 it was an ORGANIZATION, between 1977 and 2015 a BRAND. Since 2015 C1000 in its totality is nothing else than a HISTORY. This HISTORY is FULLY contained within the history of Jumbo as former C1000 supermarkets and corporate have become part of the Jumbo network and have rebranded/dissolved as an organization. Not just a few years. The entire history! This FULLY contained history must be visible and clear in the Jumbo article. If there is enough material here for SPINOFF, i.e. significantly more material than one would expect at Jumbo, then a separate history is justified. This confusion about what C1000 is (i.e. not was), shows in the article. It's a huge mess! Before, after, after the before, before the after. Please start with considering what you are writing about and keep all information chronological. Also for organizations (this isn't an organization), we really need to avoid recentisms. gidonb (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let me start by saying that I haven't been able to find the time to expand the article further due to other obligations and projects, but the reason it is in a current "messy" is simply because I didn't have the time to work on it and regarding the differences between the brand "C1000" and the company "C1000" the original owmer Schuitema rebranded itself as "C1000" during the 21st (twenty-first) century, this is also the case for Super de Boer which originally also composed of Edah and Konmar, both large national supermarket franchise models.

Anyhow, my issue with meeging the articles is that "merged articles" are inherently less inviting for expansion about a particular subject because of an article's more narrow scope bases on its subject. Let's say that someone wants to add minor information about a moth species to Wikipedia, this could be related to its distribution or the patterns of its wings but the volunteer only wishes to add a few short sentences and use maybe one or two sources. Well, if people decided years ago to merge a stub about a moth species into an article about its genus then a great deal of information would simply be "out of scope" for the genus article, for one the infobox (which contains the detailed taxonomy) and any specific categories about places the species is endemic to. Now if a volunteer can't find an article about the species and sees that it simply redirects to "the main article" they are får less likely to add this information, what is worse is that it they do add this information it might get removed because just because the species happens to live exclusively in Bolivia doesn't mean that it deserves mention in an article about a genome mostly found in Brazil and more detailed information gets excluded. What I mean to say here is, Jumbo is a company that has existed for 100 (one-hundred) years, only 3 (three) of those years include C1000, so what information about Schuitema, the early history of C1000, its corporate governance, business model, Etc. Are "in scope" for an article about Jumbo? Your opinions on this will inevitably be different from that of other volunteers in the future and if someone would add that information now someone in the future could remove it as saying "this is not about Jumbo, so irrelevant" and won't move it to an article about C1000 because it simply doesn't exist anymore, if that person isn't interested in creating a standalone article for C1000 it unlikely will. This is the issue of "merging stubs".

C1000 was notable as independent formula / brand / company before its acquisition by Jumbo Supermarkten, so is Super de Boer. We don't merge articles about companies into into other companies solely because of the fact that they got bought. Google (Alphabet, Inc.) has acquired hundreds of companies, if they had an independent Wikipedia article before the acquisition this article doesn't get merged, people will simply add news of the acquisition and then list in what products and/or technologies used by Google this got integrated in. If future developments occur or someone decides to write more about its history people can.

I will add a tag that says that these articles can include more content translated from the Dutch-language Wikipedia as those articles are quite sizeable (which is a rarity for that Wikipedia as it tends tp "fetishise stubs" as they are the lenght of "real encyclopedia entries" with people "trimming" articles all the time over yonder) so if someone wishes to expand the articles they will have a frame of reference to work with. If you really want me to I can try to find the time to write a bit more about C1000 but honestly I have little experience writing about supermarkets so I just added the prose like I would to an article about a historical country or military unit where you have "general history", "equipment" (here as "products"), and "memorials" (kind of like the "Museum" here), again, I didn't consult other articles about supermarkets as I simply didn't want this article to be "lost". I simply do not see the added value of removing stubs simply because they are stubs (and until a few years ago I used to hate stubs with a passion until I read an essay about them on someone's user page at the Meta-Wiki). Just because someone doesn't want to improve the articlea today doesn't mean that that won't happen tomorrow and redirects are a lot less inviting to expand with minor information than stubs. I believe that Wikipedia should invite small contributions and that articles will grow over time.

Non-notable subjects tend to get merged into notable ones, if a subject is notable by itself it should have its own article. --Donald Trung (talk) 11:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A brief article on a defunct supermarket chain. While the topic is notable, the limited amount of information creates a situation where it is much better put to use in Jumbo (supermarket). gidonb (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Alright if you don't want to expand it I can take my time to translate some Dutch news articles about it over the years into it, I don't think that the readers would really benefit from having less articles and remove such a historically huge national company because it is currently a stub. "Real" encyclopedias (paper encyclopedias) have entries the same size as Wikipedia's "stubs" and do just fine. While I'm not a fan of stubs they are more inviting to expand than redirects. Especially since adding Super de Boer here would add a company unrelated to Jumbo until its acquisition here. We wouldn't add information about AOL and Yahoo! during the 1990's to Verizon's page. --Donald Trung (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trung, as long as all these companies are notable (you agree with me they are), it only depends on the amount of information in each article. gidonb (talk) 20:30, 13 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]