Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House of Reeves


 * 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. Michig (talk) 09:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

House of Reeves

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Being destroyed by arson in a riot is an insufficient basis for notability; the relevant policy is NOT NEWS  DGG ( talk ) 06:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep No one is claiming notability on the basis of merely "being destroyed by arson". The store has had multiple, significant coverage in national and international media, and had a street (and through that a public transport stop) named after it. It passes GNG by a country mile. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * P.S. Including a large segment of a recent television documentary. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete- While the overall collection of riots was notable, the arson was a single event and the building was just an unfortunate casualty. It and the business it contained are not notable.--Rpclod (talk) 12:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per Andy Mabbett. The arson was the incident that gave the store international media coverage and prompted the creation of this article, but its notability derives from the fact that it has survived as a business for over 150 years, and is a well-known local landmark. GrindtXX (talk) 13:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak redirect to 2011_England_riots which includes the photo of the burned-out building. Otherwise "Delete". Insufficiently notable for a stand-alone article; does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. If the argument is that the store is notable due to the riots, then include a couple of sentences in the riot articles. Otherwise, this is akin to WP:BIO1E situation, and a separate article is not required. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic has a rich and interesting history. Recents events have attracted significant coverage which has extended over years and so well establishes the notability of the topic. Andrew D. (talk) 08:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - per International media coverage and national coverage long before the arson, rich and interesting history indeed. BabbaQ (talk) 16:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Which sources show notability independent of the riots? Everything that's in the article is riot-related, and no sources have been offered in this AfD to show "national coverage long before the arson". K.e.coffman (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have now considerably expanded the non-fire elements of the article – including e.g. the 1970 quote "one of the town's shopping landmarks" – which I hope will persuade some of the deletionist camp to reconsider. No-one is claiming that the store was of international significance, but it was certainly of considerable local prominence and easily meets notability criteria. GrindtXX (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above and the WP:HEY expansion. A 150-year-old business is notable in and of itself, and getting national coverage on top of that easily meets GNG.   Montanabw (talk) 22:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article may not be great at making this clear, but this isn't just another shop; it's a landmark well-known enough that the local station is named after it. While 150-year-old institutions in Britain aren't particularly unusual, 150-year-old institutions in Croydon certainly are. &#8209; Iridescent 17:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. WP:NOTPAPER, this wouldn't be a vital article by any stretch, but it seems that building has been covered as a building/business as well as being covered in relation to the arson attack on it.Icewhiz (talk) 08:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep well-sourced, meets WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep -- per recent article improvements. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:38, 17 February 2018 (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.