Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of business failures


 * 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 Speedy keep per WP:SNOW.  D u s t i talk to me 19:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

List of business failures

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Nominated because a company collapsing is a common occurrence, also there is no definition of this list as it is undefinable for the fact administration does not mean the end of the road for a company Dr Tobias Funke (talk) 09:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. A viable topic.  Per WP:LISTS, it should only include notable businesses that have failed.  If it doesn't, it can be improved to do so.  However, "Failure" needs to be defined.  Perhaps "List of businesses that have filed for bankruptcy" would be better, as that would be easier to source.  Celarnor Talk to me  12:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * KEEP A useful article. Just don't list small crappy business which no one has heard of in the list. Ijanderson977 (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep A well maintained, high quality list with only a few red links. This is not intended to be the list of companies which have filed for bankruptcy/ administration, which as Dr. T F point out, does not necessarily mean the failure of the business.  UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Fairly well maintained list with finite criteria for inclusion, with decent refs and a reasonably small number of red links. Meets WP:LISTS easily. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as above, however there needs to be a definition of what failure is. My suggestion is to keep those with its own articles. For those who don't, my recommendation is... all entries needs to be sourced, redlinked article (notable ones) will be kept at the talk section. Thats my rough suggestion. Willirennen (talk) 18:06, 7 April 2008 (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.