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. After extended time for discussion and the spilling of a great deal of electronic ink, we have a clear absence of consensus for deletion (and a clear absence of consensus on whether sources provided are applicable). It is noteworthy, however, that there is a substantial contingent favoring redirection to the parent company (which is indisputably highly notable itself, and is capable of having independently notable subtopics), and that substantial expansion of the article was undertaken, tracking with an increasing shift towards keeping the article as the discussion progressed. BD2412 T 01:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Chapter

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

New Chapter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

afaict this isn't a notable subsidiary of P&G, attempted to redirect but it's been contested. Everything about NC is just run of the mill stuff you'd expect for any business, especially subsidiaries. There's nothing truly in depth. PRAXIDICAE💕 13:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's basically a glorified interview and not even substantially about the company itself. PRAXIDICAE💕 14:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks more like a feature article to me and is supportive of meeting WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are not independent sources, especially for businesses. ––FormalDude talk 16:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It can be discussed in the section that already discusses subsidiaries. There's nothing more encyclopedic that can be said about it because it isn't notable in its own right. And this isn't rushing, it's a 7 day long AFD. PRAXIDICAE💕 14:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I feel it's rushing because so far today I removed a speedy deletion on the article and another editor blanked the page and added a redirect without any discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects don't need a discussion if they're not controversial per WP:BOLD and WP:ATD. So I boldly did so and now it's here. PRAXIDICAE💕 14:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Al Jazeera Yes No COIs Yes RSP No There is only one mention of New Chapter and no substantial discussion. All it does is confirm that Procter & Gamble owns New Chapter. ✘ No
Wall Street Journal No It is based solely on information from the founders and is therefore not independent. Yes RSP Yes Covers the topic substantially. ✘ No
Cincinnati Business Insider No As an interview, it is a primary source. Yes RSP Yes Covers the topic enough. ✘ No
HerbalGram No A glorified press release. Yes peer-reviewed, quarterly journal Yes Covers the topic substantially. ✘ No
NutraIngredients No As an interview, it is a primary source. ? Unclear Yes Covers the topic. ✘ No
Brattleboro Reformer No As an interview, it is a primary source. Yes Reputable newspaper Yes Discusses the topic at length. ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).
––FormalDude talk 16:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to offer the following "alternative perspective" to the table above, including correcting what I think might be typos in the first column last two records of the table:

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Al Jazeera Yes No COIs Yes RSP Yes Confirm not only that Procter & Gamble owns New Chapter, but also holds it out as an example as one of three companies that make up "the bulk of the industry" and therefore speaks to WP:IMPACT. ✔ Yes
Wall Street Journal Yes Interviews and information from the founders are standard research for a story that would be published in a quality source like Wall Street Journal Yes RSP Yes Covers the topic substantially. ✔ Yes
Cincinnati Business Insider Yes Is not a primary source but instead is a story written by a staff reporter Yes RSP Yes Covers the topic enough. ✔ Yes
HerbalGram No Press releases--even when reprinted by reliable sources--are generally not considered for notability but can be used for validation. Yes peer-reviewed, quarterly journal Yes Covers the topic substantially. ✘ No
Brattleboro Reformer (not "NutraIngredients" as originally posted) Yes Researched article by reporter for an independent newspaper Yes Brattleboro Reformer has been published since 1876 and is a reputable newspaper Yes Covers the topic. ✔ Yes
NutraIngredients (not "Cincinnati Business Insider" as originally posted) Yes Not affiliated with subject material or topics, is independent ? Unclear Yes Discusses the topic at length. ? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you're not aware that interviews are considered primary, non-independent sources per WP:ORG. ––FormalDude talk 17:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I like the directions on WP:ORG: "A feature story is usually a longer article where the writer has researched and interviewed to tell a factual story about a person, place, event, idea, or issue. Features are not opinion-driven and are more in-depth than traditional news stories." The sources in question are feature stories and not simply "memoirs or interviews by executives" so they apply to Notability and GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The given sources (aside from Al Jazeera) are entirely based on the comments of employees, which makes them (according to WP:ORG) "examples of dependent coverage". ––FormalDude talk 18:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, it looks to me to be simply a part of the feature article process and is not opinion-driven while being more in-depth than traditional news stories. That's the standard. Since we disagree, arguing among ourselves will add nothing to this discussion and I suggest we let the closer sort it out.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Explain in detail why this source (pg 2) is a "non-independent interview". It is the Brattleboro Reformer, the third largest newspaper in Vermont. It is a staff journalist. It contains original reportage. There are a few quotes but it is not an interview piece, an interview piece is where the bulk of the text is large block quotes of unedited replies. This is normal journalism, it contains small select edited quotes and lots of original reportage and writing by the journalist herself. -- GreenC 04:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That source cannot be called independent because 80% of it is text directly attributed to executives of the company. ––FormalDude talk 04:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh that's not a problem. The question is it a reliable source, and if so we expect the journalist did their homework and wasn't just acting in a COI capacity, for which there is no evidence. Of course they interviewed the company members, that is the point of the story, it's about the company's recent activities which are newsworthy. Who else would they interview. -- GreenC 06:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is a problem when assessing notability. An independent source would be based on information from people who are not affiliated with the company. ––FormalDude talk 06:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It contains original reportage with 'significant' statements of notability ("world's largest organic vitamin company"). And as a reliable source we assume Brattleboro Reformer did their homework to verify what they were told is accurate regardless of who told it to them. For notability purposes it doesn't require opposing POVs or negative opinions to be considered independent. And there's really no one else they would interview for a business news story. What's important for notability purposes is the fact a reliable source covered the company, and what the RS said. -- GreenC 01:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at any of these business Good Articles and you'll see sources interviewing plenty of people who are not affiliated with the topic. They're not hard to find when it is a truly notable topic. ––FormalDude talk 07:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing vote to Merge with P&G article. Looking at the article again, I do think it lacks some hard corporate facts and independent analysis. There are some analysts (and investors) quoted in some of the vertical publications but it mostly has to do with what a lucrative investment this is for the large consumer brands that are acquiring these "organic" and "lifestyle" businesses. Sometimes those vertical business publications have information that is useful IRL but maybe it just doesn't satisfy encyclopedia standards. There are also so many questions that aren't answered by the article right now: What are the major products now? Who are the customers? Are there any other indicators of business performance since the acquisition? I was hoping these types of questions would be answered by the WSJ articles, as they weren't really covered by the other articles I looked at in helping to expand the page, but apparently that information isn't there per those who do have access. (Industry analyst reports, maybe? Dow Jones / Bloomberg access maybe? Grasping at straws now.) It's hard once a company gets acquired as well and some of the corporate information isn't as easily accessible as it might have been previously. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the topic is a company/organization, we therefore require references that discuss the *company* in detail. As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content".
  • "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH.
None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company. Most of the Keep !voters above are avoiding NCORP's criteria for establishing notability, instead asserting that it passes GNG (and thereby ignoring the WP:SNG section) of GNG. If the company was notable, there should be at least a couple of references that meet NCORP. Relying on a single sentence such as a description saying "the world's largest organic vitamin company" witout any further supporting content in an article about the company celebrating an event is not WP:CORPDEPTH for example. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 14:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
it actually does bother me that no one has actually accessed either of the two WSJ articles – even if some of the content for one of them incorporates interview content, it quite likely has additional info and analysis independent of the company. So maybe it comes down to pay up for the content (to possibly save it – no guarantees), or just accept that there isn't enough "hard" content to satisfy the CORPDEPTH standard. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know why you assumed that nobody accessed the WSJ articles. The first WSJ reference relies entirely on information provided by the original founders, Paul and Barbi Schulick. The article also relies on quotes from P&G. Once you remove the information provided by the related parties, there isn't much left and certainly not enough to meet CORPDEPTH and nothing to satisfy the "Independent Content" criteria of ORGIND. The second WSJ reference is a general article on the market for dietary supplements which has nothing more than a passing mention of the topic company, one of which is a quote from Tom Milliken, a spokesman for P&G. This also fails CORPDEPTH. HighKing++ 15:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. I will change my vote then. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/102872006/new-chapter/ contains original reporting with a significant statement of notability ('worlds largest organic vitamin company') by a journalist, in their own words, not attributed to anyone else, in a reliable source. Did they also interview the company? Yes, but that does not invalidate the significant part of the article. -- GreenC 19:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MaxnaCarter (talk) 10:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two points. First, as per WP:SIRS, each reference must meet *all* the criteria in order to count towards establishing notability. A snippet of 5 words from an article that relies entirely on information and quotations from the company and assuming we agree that those 5 words are "clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated with the company" (and it isn't), we also need to meet CORPDEPTH. Once you ignore the content which is not "Independent Content" (i.e. the rest of the article), then I don't see how 5 words meets CORPDEPTH by any stretch. Second, clearly the journalist is wrong. Even the company themselves in January 2007 describe themselves as a small company owned by family and friends and not the largest and certainly not the world's largest. If you read the rest of the article on page 6, you'll read that the company had 130 employees and one warehouse. This is the problem with thinking that a snippet from a quote by a journalist is accurate and truthful. There isn't one other reference that describes it as such - because it wasn't a true statement. HighKing++ 20:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is independent of the company. It amazes me folks believe interviewing members of the company, when it's a new story about the company, negates independence! It takes the concept too far. Independence is when there is some sort of COI or connection. It is a reliable source, a staff journalist. Short of conspiracy theory and assumption of bad faith, it is an independent source. Furthermore, you say "the company themselves disagree with the journalist", further solidifying the journalist is writing independent of the company! Your actually undercutting your own arguments. In any case their "About" page is marketing, they presents themselves as folksy and non-corporate is part of their branding. -- GreenC 01:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument shows a severe lack of understanding of Wikipedia policy on articles about companies. ––FormalDude talk 07:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add to what FormalDude has said by pointing out that Wikipedia policy is *verifiability* not *truth*. The claim that they're the biggest in the world is simply not verifiable by any other source. Because it is untrue. Also, the duty a journalist/publisher has to to faithfully reproduce the meaning and context of announcements and interviews. So if a spokesperson says they are making 100 jobs redundant and the newspaper writes it as 500 jobs, that's a problem. You also misunderstand the difference between a journalist/publisher being "Independent" and "Independent Content". One is corporate independence - no corporate links, easy concept to understand. But NCORP requires "Independent Content" which is not the same thing as simply repeating what the company says/announces. Claiming the two are one and the same, claiming that because the journalist is "independent" therefore the content is too is nonsense and that is why there is a very specific definition of "Independent Content" in WP:ORGIND. In order for a reference to assist with establishing notability must it contain "Independent Content", but that "Independent Content" must also contain in-depth info about the company. None of those references meet the criteria. Those are our guidelines and they're simply to understand. HighKing++ 12:44, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"World's largest organic vitamin supplement company", even if it was once true, is categorically a marketing catch phrase and as such, does not belong in an encyclopedia entry. I've removed it. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"A marketing catch phrase" written by an independent journalist in an independent source. Taking it to WP:RSN. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#"World's_largest_organic_vitamin_company" -- GreenC 19:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"simply repeating what the company says/announces" .. luckily that is not what is happening here. No where does the company itself say they are the largest. It is the conclusion and assertion by an independent journalist. The journalist did their own original research, which is what good independent journalists do. -- GreenC 19:39, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An extraordinary claim requires an extraordinary reference as per WP:EXTRAORDINARY. Also, even if we agree it meets WP:ORGIND and is the result of independent fact-checking by the journalist (and we don't), a 5 word sub-sentence/snippet does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH and the remainder of the article fails WP:ORGIND as it is practically all quotations. *Each* reference must meet all the criteria as per WP:SIRS. HighKing++ 12:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It meets WP:GNG, "significant" doesn't mean lots of words otherwise we would have a word limit.. "largest company" is few words but is a significant statement. I don't give extraordinary much weight in this case, there's no reason to distrust this reliable source, the claim is not contradicted anywhere, nor is it particularly surprising given the small size of the industry and leading role of New Chapter in creating that industry. Everything we do here is guidelines, they are not strict rules, context matters. -- GreenC 13:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I note, again, that *none* of the Keep !voters have bothered to engage in any debate over specific references. Please point out which paragraph in which reference contains in-depth "Independent Content" containing information on the company from people clearly unaffilitated with the company. This is not a !vote counting exercise. HighKing++ 12:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is not a vote counting exercise. And your endless repetition does not cure the vacuity of your argument. WP:COAL.
Article improvement is a proper response to an AFD. That it renders the prior votes irrelevant may be true. But see WP:Before, which was incumbent on the nominator when this proceess began. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Article improvement is *not* a proper response in the middle of an AfD where the article is essentially rewritten and materially different - that should have been an outcome of the AfD discussion where consensus was achieved that the article *could* be improved through further editing. AfD is designed by its nature to be a discussion/debate - otherwise it really would be a !vote-counting exercise - and if you're going to participate, you should expect to be challenged and to defend your views using guidelines/policies. COAL is an essay and not aimed at AfD. Still waiting for you to point to the references and the paragraphs within those that meet NCORP. HighKing++ 13:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
HighKing, I agree. 7&6=thirteen's claim of "Article and sourcing are substantially improved" doesn't count for much if they won't provide specifics about which text in the sources establishes that WP:NCORP is met. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is NCORP required ie. it overrides basic GNG, and is the same as policy? My understanding NCORP is a guideline, and an optional one. Is it possible to invalidate a persons position because they don't answer your questions, when those questions assume NCORP is the one and only true measure? Or when this same person literally makes up out of the blue the requirement that it is not "proper" to add "materially different" changes to an article in the middle of an AfD. -- GreenC 23:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NCORP is optional. Per WP:N: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right. NCORP is listed in that box. NemesisAT (talk) 08:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Barring special circumstances, all companies should be held to the standards of WP:NCORP. ––FormalDude talk 08:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say that? Or is that your opinion. -- GreenC 13:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you're able to provide a special reason why this article shouldn't be held to WP:NCORP, that is likely to be
most Wikipedians' opinion. ––FormalDude talk 07:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I already did in my Keep rationale. And clearly in this case, most Wikipedians would agree there are sufficient reliable sources for GNG. And, I find the interpretations of NCORP applied here extreme just-so rationalizations in a rules-lawyer kind of way rather than a common sense bigger picture guideline. -- GreenC 18:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Funny how some editors, when it is clear something doesn't meet NCORP, revert to the GNG instead as if it somehow is a run-around NCORP. Probably without realising that WP:SNG (which is part of WP:N of which GNG is also a section) specifically refers to the strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organizations and companies. HighKing++ 19:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why do yo make stuff up so often? It undermines your credibility. SNG is not "part of GNG", anymore than GNG is part of SNG. They are both equally valid approaches depending which you want to use. First HighKing said not to make significant improvements to articles during AfD; now he says it's not appropriate to use GNG during company-related AfDs because apparently SNG literally overrides GNG! You can't make this stuff up (unless you do). -- GreenC 18:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed my comment above. GNG is part of WP:N as is SNG which specifically refers to "the strict significant coverage requirements" of NCORP for companies/organizations. HighKing++ 20:49, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That all said, even if you had done so, I've looked at the new version and yet again, none of the references you've added meet NCORP criteria.
  • You assertion that there was a "prolonged controversy" (your words? If so, that's WP:OR) would better be described as the original founders disagreeing with their new corporate masters due to (in their own words as per the WSJ article) "excessive bureaucracy" and "excessive reporting requirements and bureaucracy". Also in their own words, the deal was "poorly received within the vitamins industry". Not sure why you say it was a "prolonged controversy" - it was hardly an exceptional occurrence and certainly not a globally significant event nor one with a prolonged effect on the industry. As an event it does not meet WP:EVENT.
  • Similarly, both the Nutritional Outlook reference and the Whole Foods reference are entirely based on interviews with people connected to the topic company with no "Independent Content" whatsoever, failing ORGIND. You say that even if the numbers and facts were originally shared by P&G they're strictly regulated. That demonstrates you're missing the point about "Independent Content" as regurgitating the standard financial disclosures applicable to all companies is not "Independent analysis/investigation/fact checking/etc" and fails ORGIND.
  • As for the "class action lawsuit", please see WP:ILLCON.
Finally, please see WP:SIRS. Each individual reference must meet NCORP criteria in order to count towards notability, we don't get there by mixing and matching different references together and dealing with the aggregate. HighKing++ 12:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that we all were in favor of improving articles and Wikipedia. So article improvement is always a proper response. But apparently this is controversial? Learn something everyday. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which was noted here along with many other projects. And that also brought at least some who opine for deletion. As usual, HK is simply seeking to put his thumb on the scale with an Argumentum ad hominem. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 09:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Who are "at least some"? It looks to me like 5 on 1, would mean it was a worthwhile canvassing exercise. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see you self identify. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Make it 6 now - NemesisAT has joined in. Note that none will engage in a discussion of references/sources, just trying to turn this AfD into a !vote count. HighKing++ 13:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't make false accusations. I haven't looked at WP:ARS in a while. NemesisAT (talk) 14:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice deflection, 7&6=thirteen. Again, who are "at least some"? MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And the article was improved massively since then by some of the people you mentioned. [2] It went from three short sentences to a full article now. Thriley created the article and after it was nominated for deletion posted a rescue for help at 13:51, 26 May 2022. The first person to see that and came here to comment was MrsSnoozyTurtle at 22:30, 26 May 2022, and she voted delete, as she often does. Note that on the current Rescue list are things I posted and no one but me commented to keep. In fact, two people followed my Rescue notice and said to delete at [3]. The ARS does not "canvass" keeps, it just asks more people to look at something and see if they can make improvements, sometimes they can, and sometimes not. Dream Focus 17:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you check chapter 5 of that report it becomes obvious that the report has no "Independent Content". It starts off well, saying "Canadean company reports are based on a core set of research techniques which ensure the best possible level of quality and accuracy of data". That's encouraging - research techniques! Cool! Except, the report contains no "Indepedent Content" in the form of insights or analysis. Unsurprising, because the key sources used are: Company Websites, Company Annual Reports, SEC Filings, Press Releases and Proprietary Databases. It's vacuous. Reading the report, there is zero "Independent Content", just a regurgitation of company information. I cannot see anything that could possible meet "Independent Content" - can anyone point some out? No doubt some folk might say this report meets ORGIND's definition of "Independent Content" but I'd like you to point to actual text in the report. I further say that the report's disclaimer lays bare the fact that it is a regurgitation by stating "the facts of this report are believed to be correct at the time of publication but cannot be guaranteed". That isn't something you'll find in analyst reports which actually contain their own analysis. HighKing++ 10:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the other articles I can see in Whole Foods Magazine mentioning the topic company, I don't think you're going to find a reference that meets NCORP criteria. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. The magazine does not do any real investigative fact-finding in-depth articles on companies, it's really a bunch of ads and articles which, at the end of the day and regardless of any underlying "science", are designed to sell supplements and vitamins and are promotional. That isn't a criticism, it is what it is. HighKing++ 10:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article about a corporate subsidiary should not exist as a standalone, unless it satisfies the WP:NCORP criteria. The main criterion which the coverage appears to satisfy is “a news article discussing a prolonged controversy regarding a corporate merger”.

By definition, a controversy is based on a “prolonged public disagreement or heated discussion.” In the case of New Chapter, this controversy started in March 2012 when the acquisition was first announced and continued through July 2018, when the founders finally left the company.

Any description of the controversy would tend to rely on interviews, quotations, and opinions of multiple parties in the dispute. Currently, the section on the P&G Acquisition includes references to opinions expressed by:

Some of the sources cited are trade publications, and have been used with care. However, they are not sufficient to establish notability under WP:NCORP rules.

The main article then that does satisfy notability is The Wall Street Journal article from 2018, which includes:

The article also includes:

Under WP:NCORP rules, multiple sources are preferable in establishing notability. Thus a second independent source which helps to make the case for notability, also in covering the ongoing saga about the acquisition, is The Brattleboro Reformer, the third-largest daily newspaper in Vermont, which has followed the company over the course of its history as a privately held company through its acquisition by P&G and the departure of its founders.

If these sources are found not to be sufficient to establish notability under WP:NCORP rules, please go ahead and delete the article. (It’s the reality of being acquired by a major conglomerate – there is no room on their main article page for sub-sections covering every single acquisition.) However, before you do that, please do make sure you actually read the article, as I believe it’s also been mischaracterized during this discussion. And as always, if you have constructive suggestions about how to further improve the article (including possible sources to add), please post them to the article Talk page. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response Let me try to explain why a lot of what you're saying is Original Research and/or doesn't meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. I'll break it down into two main sections.
  • You say a news article discussing a prolonged controversy regarding a corporate merger meets NCORP and you say that this particular merger was a "prolonged controversy". First, it wasn't a merger. P&G *acquired* the company. Second, NCORP refers to a news article discussing a prolonged controversy... - you will need to provide a reference which first of all refers to it as a controversy in some form (doesn't need to use the word "controversial" so long as the meaning is clear - that is was controversial and prolonged). I say it was not controversial at all - founders disagree with new owners and leave all the time. This is not controversial. An example of a controversial merger would be where anti-competition authorities get involved or where it results in a lawsuit of some sort.
  • Without a reference saying it was controversial (as opposed to the founders being unhappy with new corporate masters) you are in danger of Original Research. As I previously mentioned above (and I also previous requested a reference) in the founders own words as per the WSJ article, they describe their reasons for leaving as "excessive bureaucracy" and "excessive reporting requirements and bureaucracy". Also in their own words, the deal was "poorly received within the vitamins industry". Nothing here suggests a controversy.
  • You say above that multiple sources are preferable in establishing notability but I fear you have misinterpreted this to mean that the content within multiple sources may be combined to meet the notability criteria. As per WP:SIRS, each reference must meet all of NCORP's requirements to count towards establishing notability. And we need multiple of these types of references (a minimum of two).
  • You say that any description of the controversy would tend to rely on interviews, quotations, and opinions of multiple parties in the dispute. You go on to say that the WSJ article from 2018 meets the criteria for notability because it contains quotes from various people who are all affiliated with the company in some way. Quotes and interviews from persons affiliated with the company fail the definition of "Independent Content". In the absence of the journalist or some other unaffiliated source providing an analysis or opinion on what was said, I don't see how those quotes are relevant for the purposes of notability.
If you can point to a specific paragraph in a specific reference that meets ORGIND and CORPDEPTH - the two sections of NCORP where most references fall down, I'm happy to look again. HighKing++ 13:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Response to response
  • The terms "mergers" and "acquisitions" are often used interchangeably, even if their strict legal definition is quite different. WP:NCORP does not specify a particular definition.
  • I actually didn't even use the word "controversy" within the article (except as a subject header for a different section); I have only used it within the context of this discussion.
  • Agree that this is not "controversial" in the sense of anti-competition authorities involved. But again, WP:NCORP does not specify this as the definition and leaves it open. And if it were in fact intended to cover regulatory or legal disputes only, it could actually be worded that way. (One could even argue that a regulatory investigation by the SEC is distinct from a mere "controversy".)
  • Absolutely yes, the irony of a broader definition of "controversy" is that it suggests that the highly subjective opinions of multiple parties matter, so an overly strict and literal interpretation of the "Independent Content" rule would make no sense in this particular case.
  • I won't quote the whole WSJ article here but was indeed surprised when I finally found it on ProQuest because it was a bit different from how you had characterized it originally. Here is a passage of how the "controversy" is explained by WSJ as potentially damaging to the business:
The clash embodies the tension big consumer companies face as they scoop up the trendy brands increasingly wooing shoppers. Many of these brands have loyal and growing followings but fail to make money or lack the resources to grow beyond niche status as independent businesses.
New Chapter is tiny, given the scope of P&G, which sells more than $65 billion a year in household goods, from Crest toothpaste to Pampers diapers. But the business's decline and P&G's clash with the Schulicks come as the market giant tries to show investors and consumers it can compete with small brands that are stealing share from its billion-dollar names.
After a lengthy period of little M&A activity, P&G in the past year has acquired a trio of startups: Native natural deodorant and two skin-care brands, Snowberry and FAB. In April, P&G also agreed to pay Germany's Merck KGaA $4.2 billion for its consumer-health business.
(Sharon Terlip, WSJ Online (19 July 2018)) Cielquiparle (talk) 14:37, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding. Again, before arguing over the meaning of the terms used in NCORP, the starting point in all of this is a reference that describes the acquisition as *controversial* and especially one that refers to a *prolonged controversy*. You say that WSJ does this. I disagree and the extract does not mention it as controversial, merely as a "clash" and the context of the article talks about a clash of small entrepreneurs vs big corporate. A "clash" - especially as it *merely* involved the founders leaving their company and who, in their own words, described the acquisition as "poorly received". Sorry, but that isn't close to what NCORP means by a "prolonged controversy". HighKing++ 15:10, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The WSJ article as a whole does describe a prolonged controversy from 2012 to 2018 within the company, but also within the marketplace. It is not only about the clash of small entrepreneurs vs. corporate, but also discusses the perspectives of buyers and retailers, also quoting a former buyer who is now a competitor. It describes the controversy as also having an impact on the performance and trust of the business. Yes, it relies on interviews and opinions solicited from three parties to tell the story. Either that is acceptable in this case or it's not. I understand your interpretation is that it's not. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked for any reference that describes it as a controversy and I've yet to see one. Calling it one is WP:OR. The WSJ article was written in 2018 - because that's when the founders left, not because there was a "prolonged controversy". Don't forget, they sold the company in 2012. So after 6 years working for P&G, the founders left (not unusual) and suddenly its a controversy? At the time of the acquisition, Paul Schulick described the acquisition as "a dream come true". Customers expressed concern - again, not controversial. In 2013, a year after the sale, Paul Schulick described the acquisition as "so far so good". In 2016, the Schulicks gave a keynote speech at the "2016 Slow Living: Opening Plenary - The New Chapter Founders’ Story" and answered questions about the P&G buyout (starting at 1:32:20) and no mention of controversy. In fact, they assured the audience that their involvement was similar to what they've always done and went on to say that P&G remained committed to the spirit of the company and their mission. No controversy. In 2017, a year before the Schulicks left, an interview with Sara Newmark, Director of Sustainability of New Chapter since 2002 explained the acquisition as being "typical of a business" of their size at the time and went on to express excitement for the future. So I'm just not going to agree that this qualifies as a prolonged controversy. I cannot even agree it was even a small controversy based on some scepticism by customers (as you would expect) when the company was acquired. HighKing++ 17:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You win the award! Most postings at this AFD. That makes a Baker's dozen postings for you. You can break that record, no doubt. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
7&6=thirteen, please drop the snarkiness, it is not helpful. Do you have any policy-based reasoning in response to HighKing's detailed explanation? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Back at you, Queen of Snark. Your presence was anticipated. Your history proceeds you. Regards, 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:37, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that the AFD notice itself plainly states, In haec verba "Feel free to improve the article, but do not remove this notice before the discussion is closed ". I didn't want to burden the closer. You don't like my policy based arguments. And I disagree with you. You have made 14 repetitive edits here. And I leave it to the reader to determine their worth. Others might characterize your conduct as WP:Bullying or WP:Disruptive. But your feelings about me, and mine about you, have no relevance to whether WP:GNG and WP:Before apply. So put a cork in the WP:Personal attacks, as they are irrelevant. I would also note that there is a marked discrepancy between H.K.'s position here and his position at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jungo Connectivity. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:20, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly High King’s comment on that afd makes me skeptical of his participation in this debate. Thriley (talk) 02:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thriley, it seems to me that they are unrelated questions. Have you purchased and read the two reports that HK is referring to for Jungo? MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process, a/k/a WP:Bludgeon. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:08, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What I see is two reports published by two companies that may or may not be reliable vs. 30 years of independent journalistic coverage for New Chapter. Thriley (talk) 16:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is long established that analyst reports which profile a company and their product(s) meet NCORP's criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 20:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since when? I wouldn't consider analyst reports to be of any reliable source coverage whatsoever. It is not even trade publication coverage at that point. SilverserenC 21:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
7&6=thirteen, please stop the cheap shots of unfounded accusations. Are you going to answer the questions you were previously asked about deletions policy and sources? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I already have answered. We know that you'll insist on the last word. It's your style. Regards. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:23, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
7&6=thirteen, where have you answered those questions please?
That's untrue, and your "style" is to make unfounded accusations then evade any questioning about them. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
unlike you and User:HighKing, I made no accusations. Every factual statement was true. 09:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I would very much appreciate if you could point to references that meet NCORP's criteria for establishing notability. My comment about articles being rewritten mid-AfD while discussing whether there were any sources that meet NCORP (and the rewrite didn't add anything that meets NCORP) was expressed clumsily and is wrong. Clearly there's no issue with improving articles mid-AfD especially if the modifications addresses the issues being discussed at the AfD. HighKing++ 20:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.
More