Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Walmart brands


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Mediran ( t  •  c ) 00:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

List of Walmart brands

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Advertisement. Largely unsourced. None of the brands is notable, and most are impossible to verify. Most of the sources mention the brands only in passing. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 13:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Not an advertisement.  Plenty of sources.  Notable brands such as George which is huge in the UK and which I have read about many times in the press.  See Walmart: Key Insights and Practical Lessons from the World's Largest Retailer for extensive discussion of their branding.  And, finally, the nomination gives no consideration to alternatives to deletion.  As there is an obvious parent article, we shouldn't be having a deletion discussion.  AFD is not cleanup. Warden (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Where did you get the idea that I was using it for cleanup? I clearly said "Not notable". Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  17:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  17:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per Colonel Warden's comments about available sources, and because I think this information is worthwhile as a spinoff from the main Walmart article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm sort of in WP:ITSUSEFUL land on this one. I can certainly see utility here and really don't see it as advertising, as the nominator intimates. Does that make it an encyclopedic topic? I'm less sure of that. Carrite (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think that TenPoundHammer is correct about notability with respect to the letter of the notability guidelines, particularly with respect to sources.  I think that the topic is notable within the spirit of the guidelines, however.  Certainly the major Walmart brands like Sam's Choice, Great Value, Equate, and Faded Glory are notable, as flagship in-house brands of the world's largest retailer.  Walmart is hugely notable, and so such an important part of its business is notable, even if sourcing those brands individually is troublesome.  I think the article should stand unmerged, because there is enough detail available to be too much detail for the Walmart article.  I would say that most of the minor brands are not notable, except this is a _list_ of brands, not a collection of articles on each separate brand, and I think they are reasonable as part of that list.  --  stillnotelf   is invisible  00:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Topic relating to one of the world's largest and most important corporations; too long to merge to main page on the company/stores. Being short of references isn't grounds for deletion, only a lack of coverage in reliable sources would be. Amazon lists dozens of books about Walmart, and there are even more magazine articles, academic papers, etc, some of which will cover the store's brands. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, in this instance per User:Colapeninsula's rationale directly above this !vote. Also, this is a reasonable WP:SPINOFF article. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, as per all above. --  Zanimum (talk) 13:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Listing what the largest retailer in the world owns, is certainly something encyclopedic. Any company with over two million employees is certainly notable enough to cover everything it owns.   D r e a m Focus  00:50, 17 May 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.