Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Chapter

New Chapter

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

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)

• Redirect to the P&G Proctor and Gamble article. Oaktree b (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Here’s an article in the Wall Street Journal about the founders regrets about selling to P&G: [1] Thriley (talk) 14:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

That's basically a glorified interview and not even substantially about the company itself. PRAXIDICAE💕 14:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Looks more like a feature article to me and is supportive of meeting WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Interviews are not independent sources, especially for businesses. ––FormalDude talk 16:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment There's not really a place for this information to be put on the Procter & Gamble article, and a redirect would leave the detail out. Stub articles are okay. It's difficult to research online because there is a tremendous amount of online advertising getting in the way of searches. Let's let the discussion play out and do some research here, no need to rush.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• keep did some research and digging through, and there is now enough in the article to pass WP:GNG with multiple sources. Wall Street Journal, Al Jazeera, etc. Likely will remain a stub, but let's not confuse stub-status with non-notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
• Redirect. WP:ORGCRIT is the applicable guideline. My assessment is that the topic is not notable based on the existing sources:

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Al Jazeera	No COIs	RSP	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	It is based solely on information from the founders and is therefore not independent.	RSP	Covers the topic substantially.	✘ No
Cincinnati Business Insider	As an interview, it is a primary source.	RSP	Covers the topic enough.	✘ No
HerbalGram	A glorified press release.	peer-reviewed, quarterly journal	Covers the topic substantially.	✘ No
NutraIngredients	As an interview, it is a primary source.	? Unclear	Covers the topic.	✘ No
Brattleboro Reformer	As an interview, it is a primary source.	Reputable newspaper	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)

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	No COIs	RSP	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	Interviews and information from the founders are standard research for a story that would be published in a quality source like Wall Street Journal	RSP	Covers the topic substantially.	✔ Yes
Cincinnati Business Insider	Is not a primary source but instead is a story written by a staff reporter	RSP	Covers the topic enough.	✔ Yes
HerbalGram	Press releases--even when reprinted by reliable sources--are generally not considered for notability but can be used for validation.	peer-reviewed, quarterly journal	Covers the topic substantially.	✘ No
Brattleboro Reformer (not "NutraIngredients" as originally posted)	Researched article by reporter for an independent newspaper	Brattleboro Reformer has been published since 1876 and is a reputable newspaper	Covers the topic.	✔ Yes
NutraIngredients (not "Cincinnati Business Insider" as originally posted)	Not affiliated with subject material or topics, is independent	? Unclear	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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Delete. I agree with the nom and most of FormalDude's source analysis. There's very little info to be extracted from the articles. The NaturalIngredients article is just a thanks for New Chapter's donation of masks, plus the website promotes businesses, so it's not particularly independent IMO. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  What do you think about the article now? It has been expanded significantly. Thriley (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. Thriley (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
• Delete As per FormalDude's source analysis. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Thriley (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• Keep https://www.forbes.com/sites/jaycoengilbert/2017/09/04/how-to-sell-without-selling-out-and-buy-without-burying-the-brand/?sh=279ed8143dcd gives them significant coverage. That article is "Editors' Pick", so a paid editor did review it and chose it as one of their best. https://www.wsj.com/articles/they-sold-their-startup-to-p-g-it-struggled-they-quit-1532005200 Most of the article is hidden behind a paywall, but it seems like this is significant coverage as well. Multiple pages about the company at https://www.newspapers.com/image/801159620 Daily Hampshire Gazette (Northampton, Massachusetts) 01 Dec 2014, Mon Page m8. New Chapter as a search term shows too many results. Adding in the name of the company that bought them gives some results. Searching for the last name of their founders "Schulick" gives more to sort through. Dream Focus 08:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  That Forbes article is unreliable per WP:FORBESCON. ––FormalDude talk 19:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  The link says Most content on Forbes.com is written by contributors with minimal editorial oversight, and is generally unreliable. Most but not all. This one is "Editors' Pick", as I mentioned, so it has the required editorial oversight.

  Says not to use it unless the article was written by a subject-matter expert. The person who wrote it states they are the Co-founder of B Lab and the movement of Certified B Corporations.. B Lab and B Corporation (certification) both have articles, showing how notable they are. This person is an expert is clearly a "subject-matter expert". Dream Focus 22:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

• Delete No indication of being notable. Sources are very poor and two above, the Forbes is PR that fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. scope_creep^Talk 15:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
• Comment @FormalDude: @Paulmcdonald: I have added a bunch of sources since the article was nominated. Can you take a look at them? Thriley (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  I looked at three more:

  • "With Top Lines Drooping, Firms Reach For Vitamins" Wall Street Journal. Accessed via TWL. Source is not significant or independent, only includes one mention that is a quote from an employee.
  • "As Economy Is Down, Vitamin Sales Are Up" New York Times. Source is not significant or independent, only includes one mention that is a quote from an employee.
  • "Slow Living Summit and New Chapter" Brattleboro Reformer. Significant and reliable but not independent as it is entirely based on an interview.

  ––FormalDude talk 20:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  Don’t interviews count towards GNG? Thriley (talk) 20:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  Yes. Some get confused about interviews. A reliable source wrote a lot about someone/something, then that counts, even if they interviewed the person. The only thing in Wikipedia's rules written about interviews as that they are primary sources of information, so shouldn't always be trusted for information inside an article. But WP:PRIMARY has nothing to do with proving notability, its only about the content of an article. Dream Focus 22:13, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  Per WP:ORG, "Primary sources cannot be used to establish notability." ––FormalDude talk 02:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

  WP:NOTABILITY clearly states it has to meet the general notability guidelines, which interviews count towards, OR one of the subject specific guidelines. Does not have to meet both. Dream Focus 02:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

  While that is technically correct, WP:NOTABILITY also states that both GNG and SNG do not guarantee an article survives deletion, and SNGs specifically serve additional purposes such as the stricter significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organizations and companies.

  Precedence for articles about companies is to rely on the stricter WP:ORG guidelines for notability, and I see no reason this topic should be an exception to that. ––FormalDude talk 02:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

  How is an article in the Wall Street Journal a primary source? Yes it contains quotes from the company founders, but it is an independent journalistic piece. Thriley (talk) 02:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

• Delete. I'm also in agreement with User:FormalDude's source assessment table - articles that rely primarily on interviews with company founders or other interested parties for their content cannot, by their nature, be independent, regardless of what outlet publishes them or how good the journalist's reputation is. Also, in business journalism, features and profiles are much less likely to be independent, significant, reliable coverage than not; business journalism has a proclivity to fawn. Per WP:CORPDEPTH. The article meets my generic description of deleteable content in WP:SERIESA almost to the letter. FalconK (talk) 08:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
• Redirect. Or delete, I'm not really experienced enough to decide specifically but I agree that the notability (no signification/meaningful coverage with reliable sources) isn't enough for a separate article. Basic info can be added to the P&G article. --Lalaithan (talk) 19:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

  What do you think about the article now? It has been expanded significantly. Thriley (talk) 16:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I found a few sources that are non-trivial. one, One continued, two. I will see what I can do with the article. Bruxton (talk) 01:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
• Keep I have found and added two in depth sources. I have also cleaned up the article and organized it so that it reads better. I can continue work on the article this week. I feel like the article is much better and I hope others agree. Also in one reference which I provided New Chapter was called, the "World's largest organic vitamin company". I think that may be the best claim for notability so far. Bruxton (talk) 03:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  Those are both non-independent interviews, and I think the second one is actually an advertisement. ––FormalDude talk 03:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Keep "The world's largest organic vitamin company". Notability does not expire. Major player in the vitamin industry. I'm not convinced by the lawyer-like take down of the sources, it passes GNG particularly when you look at the whole picture. The very idea of organic supplements (Vitamin C, B, etc) became popular in the 1990s as tests revealed standard brands were contaminated with heavy metals or lacked in actual vitamins, so there was a wave of new companies to make quality products and New Chapter was a leading co. in that wave. A deletion here based on narrow readings of notability guidelines that misses the bigger picture would be wrong. The sources are difficult to uncover on the Internet 20 years after the company's hey-day in the early 2000s, but we are seeing evidence of notability that should give pause to a rush to delete. -- GreenC 04:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
• Keep. The article has expanded significantly within the last 8 hours, and incorporates many more sources compared to when it was originally nominated for deletion. It now includes information on corporate history and annual revenues for the company (from $25 million in 2005 to $100 million in 2011/12), clearly demonstrating that this is not a trivial business. In addition, the article has been expanded to include multiple perspectives on the company, the industry, and the acquisition, including controversy about the safety and effectiveness of nutritional and herbal supplements, which continue to be largely unregulated, and the ownership of these enterprises by large pharmaceutical companies. The overall tone remains neutral. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• 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)

• On second thought...I've done more research and I think this is still fixable with further revision. Will update my vote again with additional commentary when I'm done. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

• Keep This article has been greatly expanded from the three sentence stub that it was when it was nominated. It is a major company in the organic industry with mainstream press going back three decades. Thriley (talk) 13:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect to Procter & Gamble as per WP:ATD. This is a company/organization therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. There are particular criteria for establishing the notability of a company. Also, unless blatantly obvious (e.g. Blog posts, no attributed journalist, Forbes contributors, etc), I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than just "RS" for establishing notability.

• 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)

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)

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)

Thanks for clarifying. I will change my vote then. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Your argument shows a severe lack of understanding of Wikipedia policy on articles about companies. ––FormalDude talk 07:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

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)

"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)

"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)

"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)

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)

• Keep. I've rewritten the article yet again, so please have a read. After extensive research and consideration (also about whether "New Chapter" would be better left simply as a bulletpoint on List of Procter & Gamble brands), the main justification for keeping this article as a standalone, per WP:ORG, is that there is substantial coverage about New Chapter, Inc. in the form of news articles discussing a prolonged controversy regarding a corporate merger. There are multiple sources for this, including business publications such as the Wall Street Journal Online, and trade publications such as Nutritional Outlook and WholeFoods Magazine (unaffiliated with Whole Foods Market). I know there was some debate previously about the fact that all of these sources interviewed the founders of the company, but I would note that most of the articles that are now cited in the "Acquisition by P&G" section of the article (including the WSJ and others) actually do interview other sources (including P&G and other industry insiders, exactly what you would expect in an article about "a prolonged controversy regarding a corporate merger"), and incorporate additional stats from third-party analysts, as well as many falsifiable facts which were almost certainly fact-checked (in the case of WSJ). Even if some of those numbers and facts were originally shared by P&G, publicly traded companies in the United States are strictly regulated when it comes to disclosing material information to the media and could expect sanctions for any misleading or inaccurate statements made publicly about company performance, from the SEC or in the form of class action lawsuits. I've also gone through most of the article and tried to keep it as neutral in tone as possible (no cheerleading), I've added better secondary sources and deleted every single suspect press release, and added additional facts and sections which may be of interest (including the class action lawsuit Waldman v. New Chapter, Inc.), which are definitely WP:NOTADVERTISING. I really appreciate all the rigor with which previous posters have interrogated previous drafts of the article, etc., especially the sourcing, but think I've addressed most of these concerns now. Happy to discuss further improvements to the article on the article Talk page. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
• Keep. Article and sourcing are substantially improved. Not the article it was when nominated for deletion. WP:Not paper; WP:Preserve. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• Response Rewriting an article when it is at AfD and after multiple !votes have been case is not the correct way to go about things. You're essentially trying to do a run-around on the !votes that have already been expressed. You should instead have requested the page gets moved to Drafts while you worked on a new article or a significantly new version.

• 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)