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 very clear WP:Consensus. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bulk Barn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

No indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG Catorce2016 (talk) 11:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 12:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 12:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 12:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There's plenty of media coverage of this company. Examples: Charlottetown Bulk Barn store part of new waste-free initiative, Bulk Barn takes promising step toward reusable containers, Bulk Barn has embraced the Zero Waste movement, Bulk Barn Foods Ltd. Raises Record Amount for Alzheimer Society Fundraising, Bulk Barn Foods Ltd. Takes the Lead in the Alzheimer Society's 18th Annual Coffee Break(R) Fundraiser, Bulk Barn plans to open store on Yates Street, Bulk Barn reopens after renovations, Xylitol Canada Announces Retail Distribution Through Bulk Barn Stores Across Canada. That's just after 10 seconds of a web search. There's likely plenty more that's not accessible online. The stub article as is needs work, but the subject is notable. Mindmatrix 15:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per above. Article needs work, but I'm pretty sure the subject meets the notability requirements. Ahiijny (talk) 20:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I believe that the subject is notable, a quick google search yields many results and the chain has over 250 locations. This seems like just cause to be considered notable. I am working on the page more and more as this is just the start. I hope you consider my point of view. Dellwood546 (talk) 23:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Note that an article about this company was previously deleted (per CSD G11). There were several contributors to that article that appeared to have a close connection to the company (possibly even COI ). Some may have been paid editors, as they had also edited other company articles to add material that is clearly not encyclopedic (either in content or tone). Others edited only (the previous version of) this article. The original version was a decent stub, but in early 2011 the addition of marketing fluff began. Irrespective of this, see my 'keep' comment above. Mindmatrix 19:15, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per Mindmatrix' comment above. Also, the sources indicated above are either non-qualifying trite, trivial, and passing mention coverage, are primary sources, or they are not reliable sources. For example, sources about store remodels, store openings/closures, company charitable donations, and product introductions (i.e., re-usable containers) do not meet WP:SIGCOV. Crucially, though, the second-stage test, that of WP:CORPDEPTH is not met. So, strong delete on failing that policy. --Doug Mehus (talk) 23:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the links I provided above are by no means exhaustive; as I stated above, those were what I found "after 10 seconds of a web search". Also, note that in each of the articles I linked, Bulk Barn was the primary subject of the article (ie - there were no "passing mention coverage"). The only primary source was the MarketWatch press release; the same information was reported in news articles elsewhere (and coverage of the previous year's donation is one of the links above). Your !vote should be based on your own research into the subject, not on the subset of results I posted from my search. I just conducted another quick search and found mentions of the company in the Franchise Law Journal (volume 23), in the book "Defending Class Actions in Canada" (which references the case "909787 Ontario Ltd v Bulk Barn Foods Ltd"), in the book Smart Shopping Montreal (this is a trivial mention, I know), and more. Unfortunately, much of Canadian business reporting is either paywalled or offline, so building decent articles about Canadian companies (other than the largest ones, of course) often requires a lot of effort to find reliable sources. I think this company likely passes that threshold, but I don't have access to ProQuest or other such sources to search newspaper archives, let alone archives of other sources. Mindmatrix 04:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Mindmatrix, Right, I get they're the subject, and I did did my own research. What a lot of editors fail to consider is the type of significant coverage. Having reliable sources mostly focused on class-action lawsuit outcomes or on a particular controversy but which provide little on the company's history or otherwise contribute to writing a balanced article. Maybe type of WP:SIGCOV isn't explicitly written in the policy, I'm know sure, but to me, it ought to be. If anything, our notability standards are too lax. Doug Mehus (talk) 15:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. The company has been the subject of multiple independent peer reviewed journal articles mostly pertaining to various legal actions against the company for human rights violations. Additionally, the company's products have been used in many food and agricultural science publications which, while not directly about the company, do indicate some notability as well. See:

1. "Recent Developments in Canadian Franchise Class Actions"; Thomas, Evan; Franchise Law Journal, Winter 2016, Vol.35(3), pp.399-418
2. "Defendant class actions and the right to opt out: lessons for Canada from the United States"; Morabito, Vince; Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law, Summer, 2004, Vol.14(2), p.197(52)
3. "An Updated Road Map to Entering the Canadian Market"; Weinberg, Larry ; Shaw, Geoffrey; Franchise Law Journal, Spring 2008, Vol.27(4), pp.253-263
4. "Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision: Sambrano v. Bulk Barn Foods Limited, 2019 HRTO 803 (CanLII)"; Financial Law Reporter, July 10, 2019

Additionally, the company and its products have independent reviews in the following:

1. "WASTE NOT, WANT NOT"; Kucharsky, Danny; Canadian Grocer, Dec 2016, Vol.130(8), pp.13-14
2. "Keeping it loose"; Harris, Rebecca; Canadian Grocer, Dec 2012/Jan 2013, p.17

There were many more sources that could be added, but I think this is enough to satisfy WP:GNG. The human rights violations alone lend notability as the public has a vested interest in learning about that topic as it relates to public safety concerns in the food supply.4meter4 (talk) 19:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to XfD Closer: These journal article sources should be examined closely by downloading each source and ensuring none of them just reference Bulk Barn either in a passing mention, a tangential way, or in the journal article's bibliography. I'm still not convinced any of these sources provided by the above editors pass. Note, too, that a single legal decision(s) are considered trivial coverage. Doug Mehus T·C 20:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Dmehus: Have you actually read the sources? If not, you shouldn't be expressing any sort of judgment about being convinced or unconvinced. That's not following WP:AGF. Additionally, look at the years of coverage. This isn't just one case with articles dating from 2004-2019.4meter4 (talk) 20:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

4meter4, I always assume good faith, so reject that assertion otherwise. I didn't download them because I may or may not have access to them at all. It would be helpful, when including sources, to include a relevant annotation for each article, to those without access and for convenience, that describes how each article mentions the subject of this Wikipedia article (Bulk Barn). Sorry if any misunderstanding taken, though. Doug Mehus T·C 20:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I was pretty clear in my communication that the organization has been accused of human rights violations in multiple class action law suites over the past two decades which have significant coverage in peer reviewed journal articles provided above.4meter4 (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

4meter4, Yes, that's clear, but for clarity, I meant the class actions. Are they covering Bulk Barn specifically, or just mentioning/referencing Bulk Barn in a brief paragraph or two? The latter would not count whereas the former certainly would. Doug Mehus T·C 20:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first two articles deal with Ontario Ltd. v Bulk Barn Foods Ltd. which was a class action lawsuit by franchise holders against the parent company. The case is the central focus of both articles. The third article also deals with this case and its wider implications in doing business in Canada. It was an important case. The last article is about a bundled class action case Sambrano v. Bulk Barn Foods Limited, which deals with human rights violations and food safety concerns. In each article, the company is a central focus.4meter4 (talk) 20:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems clearly notable, coverage linked above alone is more than enough to pass the GNG. The current article needs significant wok, but that is not a reason for deletion. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 08:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  DESiegel, Note that Miraclepine, in relisting this discussion, asked for others to assess the sources provided by 4meter4 to see the degree to which they provide coverage—including, crucially, in-depth historical corporate background information—on Bulk Barn or whether they are merely relating to class action lawsuits or labour disputes. If the latter is the case, then a retitling, refactoring, and splitting of this article might be the case to focus on the specific legal machinations with respect to Bulk Barn as happened with another case, NCIX, and as recommended by Cunard, who, like 4meter4, dug up some useful reliable sources that focused not so much on NCIX as a company but their data breaches and resulting lawsuits. Doug Mehus T·C 15:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, may be relevant - found this: BBF was involved in the first class action case (1999) between franchisee and franchisor in Ontario - see here. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Coolabahapple, These all sound like great sources for a multi-company article focusing on class action lawsuits between Canadian franchise owners and franchisors—the article of which could include Bulk Barn, which would serve as a redirect to the applicable section of that article, and Tim Horton's class action lawsuits, among others. Doug Mehus T·C 15:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per WP:SIGCOV 250 locations... Media coverage of this company. Example: Bulk Barn takes promising step toward reusable containers and Charlottetown Bulk Barn store part of new waste-free initiative. Wm335td (talk) 21:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Wm335td, Except those aren't significant coverage. They're routine, run of the mill coverage. I wouldn't consider "reusable containers" to be a particularly noteworthy development. Even if we liberally interpreted this as meeting WP:SIGCOV, WP:CORPDEPTH needs to be considered, for which there are simply insufficient reliable, independent sources on which to write more than a perpetual, stub- or start-class article. Thus, that crucial second test of WP:CORPDEPTH is most definitely failed.

  At best, if you're concerned with preserving editor attribution, I'd support retargeting to Bulk foods#Retailers with an Rcat "to section" identified. Alternatively, I'd potentially support a retitle-ing of this article to be focused on Bulk Barn's apparent eco-friendly efforts (similar to what we did weith NCIX post-AfD close). Doug Mehus T·C 00:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This does meet Wikipedia:Notability as there are ample amounts of significant coverage. TruthGuardians (talk) 04:55, 23 November 2019 (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.