Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Runnings

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. asilvering (talk) 02:02, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Runnings (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)

No one source that points to notability. Does not match WP:GNG and WP:ORG Pollia (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Minnesota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:52, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. From what I see on Googling, they seem to get a lot of news coverage about burglary and shoplifting in their stores. Is this odd or a coincidence? Bearian (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have seen multiple news articles in which they show Runnings opening where former retailers such as Home of Economy were. I have also seen articles on the break-in. They have acquired R. P. Home & Harvest, which has a Wikipedia article as well. Billybob2002 (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 14:04, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Neither of the keep votes given provide a legitimate rationale to keep this article per any criteria for notability. See WP:Notability is not inherited and WP:Routine coverage. Ping me if better sources turn up, but otherwise, I'm leaning to delete per nom. — Anonymous 22:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:00, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I think there's just enough coverage (see WiscNews, Democrat and Chronicle and InForum as examples) that goes beyond WP:ORGTRIV to report in greater depth on the company's strategies in the context of its markets, its competitors and the retail landscape, to contribute to a WP:NCORP pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:54, 28 February 2025 (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.