Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Best & Co. (retailer founded 1997)


 * 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   merge without redirect. I didn't leave a redirect behind because I can safely guarantee nobody will ever type in that exact term. m.o.p 03:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Best & Co. (retailer founded 1997)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Listing on AfD per Deletion review/Log/2011 May 24. I abstain. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 13:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment (Background): :I created this article when I came upon Best & Co., which appeared to include information about two separate chains that happened to share the same name. I moved content about one of the chains to a separate article, which was then speedy-deleted, which I brought to deletion review because, although I have no feelings about whether this chain is notable or not, I felt the deletion was out of the bounds of the speedy-delete process. While the review was happening, I had a series of very unpleasant interactions with another user (at Talk:Best & Co. and our respective user pages) who chose to launch unfounded and hostile accusations at me rather than discuss the article issues. This user eventually came into the deletion review and, in the midst of ranting about how awful I am, pointed out then (for the first time) that the logo of the 1997 company, which I had missed before, did indicate that it was a continuation of the older company, which would have satisfied me at any point that combining the two companies into one article was in fact justified, and I stated such. Since I had already indicated (whether or not anyone chose to observe it) my desire to close the deletion review, from this point on I withdrew from and ignored all discussions of either of the Best & Co. articles, rather than futilely continue to pursue activities that were alternately frustrating or explicitly insulting. I don't know how or why the delrev led to this AFD, I have no position on whether the article should be deleted, and I will not be watching or following the discussion here. Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you please resolve the personal disputes elsewhere and stick to the topic at hand? Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions.  — Logan Talk Contributions 15:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment&mdash;No grounds stated for deletion, so this may be a procedural keep.&mdash;RJH (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * See the link to the deletion review log. --Anthem 19:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note Anthem of joy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas . --Tothwolf (talk) 04:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep No reason to delete has been provided. Warden (talk) 20:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. This was correctly speedied to begin with, and the article creator acknowledged as much in the DRV, making me wonder why this time-wasting AFD is necessary. It's an inappropriate spinout article for a brand that went dormant and was revived, and all the content came from the main article about the brand, Best & Co., where it remains. There is no "Best & Co - founded 1997". The business press characterizes the current enterprise as the continuation of the original, as does the business itself, and the main article treats the enterprise the same way we treat other brands that have gone dormant and then been revived (see Ipana, for example). The rather cranky article creator didn't do adequate research before splitting this article off, and edit warred against multiple users, myself included, to maintain the split. We've all wasted way too much time on this already. It's clearly established, and not disputed, that the article split rested on a mistake, and wasn't justified. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed the speedy. It is apparently being contested in good faith, and we should wait for a community decision. It's the on;ly definitive way.  DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)      DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - I've just added two references to the article, including one from TIME magazine. It meets minimum notability. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's got nothing to do with the issue here, nobody argues that the company/brand isn't notable. This is the same company/brand already covered, in greater detail, at Best & Co.; that's why the second source you added describes the company has having been founded in 1879, an odd assertion to have in article about a company "founded 1997" as the title here would have it. This article began its misspent life as an inappropriate content fork, and subsequent discussion only reinforces that point. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge Ah, there is the confusion then... they should be merged (okay, not too much content will be saved from the 1997 article...), and this should not be an afd. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 17:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

 
 * Merge and redirect to Best & Co. - in fact most of the merging has already been done.  PK T (alk)  20:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- DQ  (t)   (e)  23:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge: I am not familiar with this company, but if this article was created in the error of thinking it was another company, by all means any worthwhile content should be merged into the original, proper article. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 13:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge No reason to have two articles on the same company, even given the circumstances. BusterD (talk) 10:46, 26 June 2011 (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.