Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haldanes


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Haldanes

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable short-lived supermarket, They'd lasted less than 2 years before going into administration and the owner pulling the plug, Can't find any evidence of notability, Fails NCORP & GNG – Davey 2010 Talk 21:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - Well as the creator all those years back, I don't know if any vote from me could be considered WP:COI. If I were entirely uninvolved, i'd vote keep on the basis that it did exist as an actual mid-sized chain, and at the time got headlines as it was the first in its size sector to be launched in over a quarter of a century. There are however many articles that detail supermarket or food chains, some of which seem less notable than this, including Local Plus and FreshXpress, both of which also had a short life span but are none the less generally justified for inclusion. A short life span doesn't determine notability, or lack of. Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm surprised that I cannot find any intellectually independent references but at least two are required in order to meet the criteria for establishing notability. The nearest we get with the existing references rely on company announcements and therefore fails WP:ORGIND. A quick look at Local Plus and FreshXpress articles shows much the same types of references used - I would also !vote to Delete those articles as they fails basic GNG criteria for intellectually independent references also. -- HighKing ++ 15:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep As per Wiki guidelines, notability does not diminish. The fact that this chain only existed for a short time doesn't mean it is not notable. If you type in "haldenes supermarket" into google, there are a PLETHORA of news items from different media covering the store. Which makes me assume the nominator has not done WP:BEFORE and thus this may be a procedural keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egaoblai (talk • contribs) 21:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete This seems to be around only as resume filler for all the names listed under management and in the infobox.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   00:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

 References
 * Keep as per available sources, meets WP:N. See the list below for some of them. North America1000 03:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The Guardian
 * BBC News
 * Yorkshire Post
 * BBC News
 * Manchester Evening News
 * The Independent
 * Daily Record
 * The Southern Reporter
 * Horncastle News
 * East Lothian Courier
 * John O'Groat Journal
 * Horncastle News
 * The Grocer (paywalled)


 * If that's all you can give us, then that's not good vote. Where's the deletion policy basis? Where's the policy quotes that shows us companies are always accepted without a doubt? We've never had one. I actually read your sources and I don't think they add value. Sources never actually saved an article if it was spam from the get-go. Hey you, yeah you! (talk) 03:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * My post is not a "vote", it's an !vote. North America1000 03:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete because this is spam and that's definitely no excuse. What's the big deal about a restaurant chain? Everyone has heard of one, what I read on those sources are "the company says this", "the company says that", and that's before you get to the actual paragraphs... Spam, we all know is still spam, whether you like it or not. Spam is why we're flooding with each one every day and every hour, who says we should let them? We definitely shouldn't on a hair-thin one like this. A good article would have good sources, not the hair thin ones here that are clear promo. Hey you, yeah you! (talk) 03:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment – This is not a restaurant chain, it's a former supermarket chain. If you read the sources I posted as you stated, one would think that you would have been able to make this obvious distinction. No offense intended, but just saying. North America1000 03:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If you think this article is good, then prove it. It doesn't make a difference what it is, the difference is whether the sources are good and they aren't, this is spam and spam one and the same. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a YellowPages. Hey you, yeah you! (talk) 03:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * How is it spam? They're out of business. Also, if you can't be bothered to take the time to learn very basic information about the subject of this AfD, you have no business participating in the discussion. Lepricavark (talk) 04:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per the sources provided by NA1K. Lepricavark (talk) 04:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. I read the references provided by User:Northamerica1000 and they were all about the market closing or may be closing and the jobs that will or may be lost. Not enough depth for WP:NCORP IMO. -- J04n(talk page) 14:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- sources provided are insufficient to meet WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:NCORP. Wikipedia is not a directory of nn businesses. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Additional sources are available above and beyond what I provided. North America1000 22:04, 28 December 2017 (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.