Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E. Upton and Sons (2nd nomination)


 * 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   delete. There seems to be sufficient consensus for deletion due to a lack of verifiability because of lacking reliable sources. —  Aitias  // discussion 17:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

E. Upton and Sons
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Notability concerns (tagged since September 2007). The first AfD, a year ago, was closed with the comment: "The result was keep. Hopefully sources will follow." They did not follow. Therefore I think we should re-evaluate whether the company is notable. B. Wolterding (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete There don't seem to be any sources at all online, but that doesn't mean there aren't any print sources somewhere. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Neutral - There are some pay per view sources on Google News for "Garner PLC", apparently the new namve for E Upton and Sons.  Linguist At Large  22:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Pay sources are perfectly sufficient for use at Wikipedia. These seem sufficient to show notability. DGG (talk) 00:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So add them. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * DGG, please don't be offended by this question, but did you read these sources before judging the topics notability by them? I didn't since I don't have access, but only from the summaries they might just as well refer to this Garner PLC (which is completely unrelated). --B. Wolterding (talk) 00:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, that Garner seems to be the same one - see ref 1 which I just added. MikeHobday (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * some may be; some are from PRwire & similar sources, which Google News unwisely includes; some are the occurance of the phrase in other contexts. At least a few are on point, such as --though I agree that this particular one does not do much for notability. DGG (talk) 02:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Additional reason for keep is simple common sense: the number of stores is sufficient for notability, and it being extinct makes no difference at all. DGG (talk) 02:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Number of stores doesn't matter. WP:BIGNUMBER. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  Aitias   // discussion 00:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:BIGNUMBER itself is a pitfall. It's not the number of stores that matter but the status of the store. Is it a national or international chain? If it is, it's notable regardless of the numbers involved even though the numbers will have contributed to the eventual cause of notability. - Mgm|(talk) 09:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Garner PLC. I remember reading about E. Upton and Sons in the local press at the relevant time. It was important in the North of England, and as I remember, it did cause a bit of a stir in 2001/2002, so I was tempted to say "keep", but I couldn't find any reliable sources to support that.-- S Marshall   Talk / Cont  09:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete -- (various comments by me redacted here) -- this is fairly complicated. Looks like E. Upton & Sons turned into Upton & Southern, who were then acquired by Hilco UK (a company that deserves its own Wikipedia article more than Upton, incidentally), and part of the assets were sold to a Constellation Corporation who then changed their name to Garner PLC, which is a non-notable group of headhunters. -- I'm now inclined to the view that it's simpler to delete the article than to try to tell Upton & Sons' story.-- S Marshall   Talk / Cont  10:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as regional chain. MikeHobday (talk) 22:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How the heck is that a reasoning? "Regional" has nothing to do with it. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: Listed, neutrally, I hope, at WikiProject North East England.   MikeHobday (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete due to lack of non-primary sources. Stifle (talk) 12:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - there don't seem to be enough sources to write an article here. I would be open to recreation if more sources can be found, but as it is it just doesn't look like this company was ever really notable. Terraxos (talk) 02:47, 9 January 2009 (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.