Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Co-op society stores (Kuwait)


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Co-op society stores (Kuwait)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable stores, reference is to a website that lists "co op societies" nothing to tell if they're notable or not. Claim of hiring unskilled workers is libelous most probably since the reference is to someone's blog. Seems like it's being written as a hit piece on the stores, and it's only one line. Caffeyw (talk) 23:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is no assertion of notability, and even less context. As an average American on the English Wikipedia, I have no idea what the article is trying to communicate. Please do not get me wrong, as I have also proposed deletion, we on Wikipedia are not trying to devastate all of your work, but are rather trying to get you to improve the quality of it. We all have learned our lessons, but if you do not try to revert your mistakes, others may take offense to it. Carwile2 (talk) 18:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I would think (and certainly hope) that the average American on the English Wikipedia has good enough English comprehension to understand what this article is trying to communicate. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You, sir, do not understand my message. Here is a sentence from the article with my own annotations:
 * Now days,The stores have deviated from there original purpose (From what original purpose to serving what purpose now?).They (Who?) have been hiring unskilled workers for some parties (What parties?) to win their votes (For what election?).
 * Do I know what is going on in the Middle East? Yes! But these articles on Wikipedia should not require this much reading between the lines. Carwile2 (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * . Phil Bridger (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak keep My greatest concern is that this article is being used as a sort of WP:COATRACK to attack the government. However my Google News archive search does indicate that these coops are notable, per our guidelines. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep—It's clearly notable, there's a million news articles that cover these, but indeed the current article is in a pretty bad shape. However, we shouldn't delete - we should improve the article.  I'll watchlist it and consider working on it if it survives.  WP:ATD.  Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 14:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added a primary ref and fleshed it out a little. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Let's bring this back out into the light. I am still not convinced of notability, and the sources give me even more doubt. The first one just lists stores, while the latter was just used for being restated in the article. Carwile2 *Shoot me a message* 19:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * And what about the many hundreds of further sources found by the news, book and academic paper searches that I linked above? Notability doesn't depend on the sources currently cited, but on the sources that exist. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not even trying hard, and there seem to be LOTS of sources on this: 1 2 3 4.  I'm honestly not sure why you remain unconvinced.   Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 12:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per my comment above. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Phil, Please don't vote twice, you are only allowed one vote. Also, if you are convinced of the notability, bring forth sources, please. Carwile2 *Shoot me a message* 00:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? That is my first and only vote. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:48, 16 September 2013 (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.