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. Star Mississippi 02:18, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sundial Collective (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)

Fails WP:NCORP. The Per WP:AUD, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability. I am generally unable to find coverage of this company outside of local media; the sources in this article include small local newspaper Redding Record Searchlight and local television station KRCR-TV, and I'm not able to find coverage of this business outside of exclusively local stations and a trivial mention in a single trade journals (and, per WP:ORGIND there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability). Because this fails WP:NCORP, and WP:ORGCRIT notes that NCORP establishes generally higher requirements for sources that are used to establish notability than we may see in other contexts, this should be deleted for failing to meet the relevant notability criteria in line with WP:DEL-REASON#8. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and California. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete There could be more coverage as this store is being bought by a local tribal group. Only one maybe two of the sources are good enough to establish GNG.

Source assessment table

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
USA Today (redding.com)	Author is not connected to the topic	Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Unz	Article has only passing mention	✘ No
USA Today (redding.com)	Article is a video about this location by an established reporter	Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Unz	~ Video is a very brief interview with the owner but does not go in depth, honestly this is a bit of a gray area for me	~ Partial
ABC Affiliate (KRCR)	Author is established journalist	[[1]]	~ Video is about one minute long and talks about the opening of the store, does not go in depth but has interviews with the general manager	~ Partial
ABC Affiliate (KRCR)	Author is established journalist and is not the same author as previous article from this source	[[2]]	Article covers this store being bought by a local tribal group and goes in more depth than the previous article	✔ Yes
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}}.

Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 03:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr vulpes: Thank you for the source assessment table. Is there a reason you're applying GNG rather than NCORP here? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:04, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it's just what the template popped out, let me go back and see if it'll do SNG. Sorry if it caused any confusion, I completely agree with your assessment and nomination. The only reason I mentioned that there could be more coverage was incase someone had access to like a tribal newspaper that isn't online or something. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 04:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. With respect to tables, there is {{ORGCRIT assess table}}, but it's really heavy to use don't think that there's anything akin to the SA Table Generator script that currently works on it. Now that I'm thinking about it, I might have to try to create a modified version of that to work better with ORGCRIT. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:30, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny you mention that I was cleaning up after dinner and was thinking the same thing. It would be really helpful for AfDs. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 04:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:18, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment as nom. I think that the following NCORP Assessment Table might clarify some of the ambiguity with respect to the sources, which include another source I was able to find online:

NCORP table
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}} This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Secondary? Overall value toward ORGCRIT Redding Record Searchlight (1) This seems to be an independent WP:NEWSORG that is doing its own reporting This is a WP:NEWSORG – Per WP:ORGDEPTH, of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops is considered trivial coverage. The coverage here doesn't seem to be solely about the opening of the store, but the remaining coverage is borderline. This is not a mere interview or listing of primary sources — Redding Record Searchlight (2) This seems to be an independent WP:NEWSORG that is doing its own reporting This is a WP:NEWSORG Sundial Collective is mentioned once, in passing The mention of Sundial Collective is too brief to evaluate whether there is secondary coverage of it in this article. Redding Record Searchlight (3) Per WP:ORGIND, 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 a raw video of an interview with the article subject's then-owner. Why not? – I agree with Dr.Vulpes's concern raised in the GNG assessment table above Raw video of an interview with the subject's owner is not a secondary source. KRCR (1) Seems to be reported independently This is a local WP:NEWSORG Per WP:ORGDEPTH, of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops is considered trivial coverage. This piece is wholly about the opening of a local cannabis store. why not? KRCR (2) – KRCR itself is an independent newsorg, but per WP:ORGIND, we also need independent content, which means that it includes independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I really don't see much of any of that here, with the vast majority being quotes or statements attributed to the owner or purchaser. Local WP:NEWSORG. Per WP:CORPDEPTH, standard notices or routine coverage of the of the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business is considered to be trivial coverage. This is a standard and routine report about the acquisition of a local business. – The vast majority of this is direct quotes or statements attributed to people. There might be some sort of the author's own analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, but the extent appears to be rather limited.

On top of the above, even if these sources were enough to contribute towards notability, we're still dealing with a substantial WP:AUD problem inasmuch as these are both subregional (i.e. local) publications. I truly can't find any coverage of this entity even in broader regional media, which is the death knell for the article subject's notability in my view. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 13:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:ORGCRIT per the source analysis above.4meter4 (talk) 02:10, 10 October 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.