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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peapod[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company till date. It is old but no significant nature. Covered once in a lifetime, merely promotional in nature. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. 1000s of startups happens every day. Just another one. happend a long time ago but could not make any impact to become encyclopedia. Notability required repeated significant coverage by media as well as significance in itself. building Wikiepdia page for their publicity as it still exist. 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. Thousands of online stores are there. Wikipedia is not store directory. Light2021 (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if cut to actual RS-backed claims this would be very short indeed and eminently deletable - David Gerard (talk) 21:05, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep The text of the article is bad, but this is one of the largest grocery brands in the largest market on earth. They aren't a start-up at all, and based on their service territory they seem no less notable than Carrefour or Aldi. 2601:14D:8300:2CE0:54B1:4A3F:7E1E:3A53 (talk) 21:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to find the history or talk page of contributor. it is owned by Ahold Delhaize, the new big group formed in Europe. This new thing can be big. The sources are media coverage for this one are press release. the real thing is being old or size of customers does not make a company encyclopedic notable. There are lots of companies now part of big company or were there in existence from over 50 years. It can be good and notable for a business entity but for encyclopedia need to be more than this. Light2021 (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Fundamentally, yeah - we need the RSes to have anything to base an article on - David Gerard (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is all advertising in that it clearly only states what there is to advertise about the company, there's literally nothing else, the sources are not convincing at all, and that's not surprising if this is all PR to begin with. None of this would suggest hopeful and meaningful substance therefore there's nothing to save. SwisterTwister talk 22:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- long-established company, was at one time WP:LISTED, owned by a major brand. I am seeing reasonably WP:SIGCOV in RS, such as:

New Era of Management by Richard L. Daft (a full page discussion, in what looks to be a college textbook)
Management by Richard Daft (2007). Cannot see a preview, but here's a snippet: "... But Peapod, the online grocery service founded in 1989 by brothers Andrew and Thomas Parkinson, is succeeding on all three fronts. Peapod introduced a new concept 15 years ago: the convenience of shopping for groceries online. Plenty of ..."
Applications of Supply Chain Management and E-Commerce Research from Springer Publishing, an academic imprint. Reasonably extensive discussion.

Compared to churnalism coverage we so typically see in company articles, this is a significant step up. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per sources listed by K.e.coffman above, a well as per WP:SIGCOV found via WP:BEFORE in New York Times. According to another NYT article, this company "pioneered the online grocery business." There is further significant coverage in The Atlantic, Wall Street Journal, more Wall Street Journal, The Economist, which says that as of 2013, Peapod was the "largest online grocer in the U.S." Further evidence of WP:CORPDEPTH in Chicago Tribune and Bloomberg. There are many more sources out there as well, as there are for FreshDirect and AmazonFresh, which are on the same level as this company, and which I doubt anyone would recommend deleting. Safehaven86 (talk) 23:21, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This particular one is a mjor company. (most of the other similar articles nominated aren ot, and should be deleted). WP:BEFORe is important, because it can distinguish between these two categories. K.e.coffman removed most of the advertising;what is left is acceptable by our usual standards. . DGG ( talk ) 00:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Comfortably passes WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources, and the article does not have a promotional tone at this time. Here's some sources to qualify my !vote; more are available: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appalling lack of WP:BEFORE; easily meets WP:GNG. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily meets WP:CORP, ad copy removed from page and page reads much more neutral now. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very significant grocer. Passes WP:GNG and WP:CORP.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just mentioned in the Washington Post today as a venerable example of online grocers. [9] BlueHorseshoe —Preceding undated comment added 01:44, 6 October 2016 (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.