This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Switzerland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Switzerland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwitzerlandWikipedia:WikiProject SwitzerlandTemplate:WikiProject SwitzerlandSwitzerland
@Sulfurboy: I have to admit, this is a first for me. I'm active here since 2003, though mainly in German-language Wikipedia since 2004 (where I'm an admin), but it never happened to me that one of my articles or translations here in English-language Wikipedia was moved to this so-called "Draft" namespace. I'm not familiar with this apparently rather new procedure (which we don't have over in de-Wikipedia). I see that you moved it with the reasoning "Undersourced, incubate in draftspace". Well, my intention was to translate part of the German article as a stub for later expansion, in the classical Wikipedia approach, that's also why I added the {{Expand German}} template. As I see it, the two references and the official website should be sufficient sources for such a small, basic article, for the time being. What kind of additional sources do you think are necessary? Gestumblindi (talk) 20:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gestumblindi, I have no idea about the specifics or guidelines involved with the German Wikipedia. I would hope though that if you're an admin there that you would understand that every wiki has its own standards and guidelines that guide notability. Specifically, on the English Wikipedia, we need to see reliable, secondary coverage of the subject to denote notability. Moreover, the guidelines surrounding notability of companies are some of the strictest on here due to concerns about companies regularly trying to advertise themselves on our Wiki. For those specific guidelines, we need to see WP:SIGCOV of the subject to pass WP:NCORP or WP:GNG The only provided sources are primary. The draft space is just that, a space to draft articles. We draftify articles in the mainspace that do not clearly demonstrate notability so that way they can be worked on and incubated instead of just nominating them for deletion. Hope that clarifies. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sulfurboy: Thanks for the fast reply. To me, as a Swiss, it seemed to be a gap that should be filled (even if "quick and dirty"), as these cooperatives and its Landi and Volg stores are quite commonly encountered in the rural parts of Switzerland. That's also probably the cause that it seemed to me too much self-evident that the subject is notable. "Significant coverage" in Swiss media should be rather easy to demonstrate, I think. But the topic isn't really something I intended to invest much time into, so: Would a few articles in reputable newspapers such as Neue Zürcher Zeitung (NZZ) and WOZ Die Wochenzeitung suffice? For example, this NZZ article of 2005 talks about the "dominant role" of Fenaco in the agricultural sector, and this WOZ article from 2007 criticizes Fenaco for paying migrant workers too low wages. Just as a side note: You might find it interesting that in German Wikipedia, we have notability guidelines (see de:Wikipedia:Relevanzkriterien#Wirtschaftsunternehmen) that deem companies automatically notable if their numbers are above certain thresholds; for example, if a company has more than 1000 employees, we treat it as notable, even if the sources are only primary. That being said, of course - de-WP's criteria are de-WP's criteria, and en-Wikipedia's criteria are en-WP's, we have to follow the local standards. Just to help you understand where I'm coming from. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gestumblindi, If the sources in fact confirm that, then that should be enough. I'm going to WP:AGF since you are an admin on a crosswiki. So as long as you feel that it reasonably passes or WP:NCORP guideline. There's no need to submit it through the AfC process, you can just move the page back to mainspace from the "more" menu near the top of the page when you feel it is ready. If you need help with moving it, let me know. Or you can reach out to WP:TEA which is our sort of central hub for help in case I'm offline for a couple of days. Sulfurboy (talk) 22:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gestumblindi, I'll defer to your judgement since the sources are in a language you speak. The key is that as long as the references show WP:SIGCOV, aren't press releases, and aren't covering WP:ROUTINE things like mergers or acquisitions, then it should be good. Sulfurboy (talk) 01:37, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
