Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woolworths Group (Australia)

Merge into Woolworths Supermarkets

Both the American business (F. W. Woolworth Company) and the UK business (Woolworths (United Kingdom)) combine both the corporate conglomerate and the retail side of the business. I don't see why the Australian version has to be any different? I also do not see the value in having two different articles. A lot of the history overlaps in my opinion.

I would be interested in hearing over thoughts on this. Icaldonta (talk) 22:57, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment I have noticed the footer of the website has "Woolworths Group Limited" at the bottom.

I think this discussion should be raised with high-rank Wikipedians for their call.

I do still feel the same way that Tesco supermarkets and Tesco PLC is just one article. Icaldonta (talk) 00:03, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment I have had a look and it is near impossible to pinpoint when Woolworths Group started. Woolworths Limited became Woolworths Group Limited in December 2017. However, by December 2017, Woolworths had near enough already reached the scale we see today. I just wanted to highlight this to add to the decision. Icaldonta (talk) 19:16, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose This article is about the supermarket. The group is basically an investor group that owns the supermarket, as well as subsidiaries that are intentionally kept under different names so consumers don't realise that multiple supermarkets are basically the same business. Also agree with the comments of Qwerty123M. Servite et contribuere (talk) 03:23, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose I believe they are distinct companies, like Coles Group and similar companies, just lacking the scope. They also have seperate histories and inclusions and it would be a slight disservice to combine the two, especially the sister companies. Jordf32123 (talk) 11:05, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose: There is not simply one name for the buisness's entire operations, hence why we should not use a unified article for both the group and the supermarket. There is a hatnote at the top of the history section linking to the group's article, that means further history of the whole brand can easily be found with only one extra click and also means the article will not be too unwieldy to read, WP:NOMERGE advises that a merge should be avoided unless content can be cut down. I am concerned about the inclusion of irrelevant information about stores like Big W and Woolworths New Zealand which is seldom relevant to the supermarket's article. Qwerty123M (talk) 12:46, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

What you are saying makes complete sense, but once you try and remove the overlap it becomes apparent how much content is duplicated on both articles and how intertwined the articles are, it makes it harder to keep separate and remove the overlap. I think this is very similar to Tesco in the UK. Woolworths Group just kind of "appeared" in its history, it's really hard to make it clean to define I have found. Icaldonta (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Incorrect on them being separate histories, they have the exact same history, that's the core issue being debated here Icaldonta (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't find a whole lot of overlap, just summative information. Jordf32123 (talk) 13:07, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Another approach would be just making them very distinct. Jordf32123 (talk) 13:08, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I would propose the new article to be called Woolworths (Australia)

Icaldonta (talk) 23:12, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Support I see no reason why the articles should be split.Industrialerror (talk) 08:24, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. Woolworths Supermarkets Australia is just one of the Woolworths Group retail outlets, alongside Big W, Metro, Milkrun, Woolworths NZ / Countdown, etc. Why merge just the Australian full-line supermarket brand into the parent company and leave all the other subsidiaries with separate articles? Tomiĉo (talk) 01:40, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Other than Big W, which is a subsidiary, who's name derives from Big Woolworths (but debatably distinct enough for its own page considering how deeply integrated it is with the primary Woolworths Supermarket business, functioning more like a specialty subbrand in corporate structure), all of those are derivative services of the primary Woolworths Supermarket chain, with the New Zealand branch just being the local operations of Woolworths in that country. Milkrun is also a basic delivery service that is only distinguished by its special relationship with Woolworths Supermarkets. Metro is the small format of Woolworths Supermarkets. Besides, all of these can be classified as subsidiaries in a merged page. Woolworths Group is simply the holding company of Woolworths Supermarkets with all other companies deriving from its namesake business. Making Woolworths Group a single page makes sense. Industrialerror (talk) 07:48, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Be that as it may, my comment is in relation to what I understand is the proposed merger of two articles only. Are you instead putting forward a complete merger of all of Woolworths Group's subsidiaries across Australia and New Zealand into the parent article? If not, I think my point still stands that merging the Australian Woolworths Supermarkets article while keeping the other subsidiaries' articles separate would be an inconsistent approach. Tomiĉo (talk) 12:05, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

There is a lot of overlap, we need to find a way to counter this. What would you suggest? Icaldonta (talk) 21:37, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Woolworths Group and Woolworths are two distinct entities. That is like comparing Coles to Coles Group.

Also I don't find a lot of overlap, in fact a little bit of missing information. Jordf32123 (talk) 13:14, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Support The split is unnecessary. Nikoletic126 (talk) 07:59, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Support there is a lot of overlap. I also support merging Woolworths Metro (I don't even consider this unique from the Woolworths supermarket), Milkrun (I don't believe this is even notable on its own), and Woolworths NZ into the article. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose comment That would be too multifaceted (infobox, context, history etc.) and will probably go against readability guidelines. I would suggest at most the main companies in question be merged if anything. Jordf32123 (talk) 11:12, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you mean by main companies please? Icaldonta (talk) 21:37, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Woolworths Jordf32123 (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I have just spent some time and tried to separate the articles a bit more in terms of reducing the overlap, but it is very hard as there is no clear start date of Woolworths Group, it just sort of "appears" in its history, but already Woolworths Limited owned the Big W stores and New Zealand business etc. I don't think the infobox would be too much of a problem, we'd just list Big W and Woolworths New Zealand etc as subsidiaries in the infobox. Icaldonta (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Still an issue of the article being too long and tied up into itself over two entities which are techincally unrelated Jordf32123 (talk) 13:10, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

You’ve completely missed the point. Icaldonta (talk) 12:34, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. Both the holding company and the supermarket have independent coverage about their own activities. Each appears to meet WP:GNG as standalone topics. ~2026-20962-73 (talk) 10:05, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

I have just spent some time and tried to separate the articles a bit more in terms of reducing the overlap, but it is very hard as there is no clear start date of Woolworths Group, it just sort of "appears" in its history, but already Woolworths Limited owned the Big W stores and New Zealand business etc. I think this is the same as Tesco. Icaldonta (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment:Just some context, the Woolworths Group (Australia) is currently the same entity in Australia and New Zealand. Their New Zealand was formerly a separate company called Progressive Enterprises which became Woolworths New Zealand in 2018. This link on the Woolworths NZ website is helpful. I know having separate services for the holdings companies and supermarkets is a bit confusing but they do provide some history of the various rebranding, mergers and acquisitions. One option may be to merge Countdown (supermarket) with Woolworths (New Zealand supermarket chain) since these are basically the same entity since 2023 despite being originally separate brands.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Andykatib (talk • contribs)

Assisting support from similar discussion User:Chocmilk03 as you helped out on Woolworths (New Zealand) discussion that proceeded forward, I would appreciate if you could offer some guidance here. Do you think the same rule applies, or is this different? Thanks.--Icaldonta (talk) 22:56, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

@Icaldonta: Hiya, thanks for the ping and apologies for my delayed response. I have to admit every time I try to look at this my eyes glaze over somewhat. On the face of it, I agree with you that there appears to be a lot of overlap between the two, but I'm not as confident... I think WP:NOMERGE might be more applicable here, in that the resulting article might end up being too long and clunky. I wonder if editing both articles to reduce duplicated history could be a helpful way to proceed, with the group article covering the corporate history at a higher level and the supermarket article retaining only the supermarket-specific elements.

But not necessarily opposed to a merge (and I don't think it's a good argument against that all other subsidiaries' articles would still be separate - this could make perfect sense where the subsidiaries have a differentiated brand, such as Woolworths NZ or Milkrun).

Sorry not to be more help! Chocmilk03 (talk) 22:59, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for your thoughts Icaldonta (talk) 23:47, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Could the split between Loblaw Companies Limited and Loblaws be of useful reference to folks? Was the first thing that came to mind for a "grocery store and holding company of similar or same name with shared lineage" Netstars22 (talk to me!) 18:49, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, the problem here is that we have Tesco which merges both the stores and the holding company. It seems Wikipedia doesn't really have much common ground on this, examples both ways. Icaldonta (talk) 20:13, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:39, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

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.