Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of business failures (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   keep. Regrettably, as this is a rather poor list. Stifle (talk) 10:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

List of business failures
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Way too vague a criterion. Businesses go out of business all the time. No definition for what constitutes a "failure"; we have everything from the Dixie Square Mall to redlinked businesses of dubious notability. Last AFD closed as keep because nominator was a sockpuppet. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or split up. There are several more focused lists crying to be freed from this one's carcass, but the current list is a mess. It's got everything from Newton Heath, which turned into Manchester United, to Debbie Reynold's Hollywood Hotel and Casino, which was sold and later shut down under a different name and owner, and Maria's Bakery, hardly a notable disaster. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The scope of the article seems clear enough. If there are problems with particular entries or if the list grows large then these matters may be dealt with by ordinary editing.  It is not our editing policy to use wholesale deletion for such reasons. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. How do you determine which businesses are "notable for their financial impact in the economy"? Where's the dividing line? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Notability is determined by the availability of good sources. This then divides notable failures from the non-notable ones.  Colonel Warden (talk) 10:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete -- no notability criteria for which business failures would be sufficiently notable to merit inclusion; and no criteria have been offered that come from a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep TenPoundHammer, you claim the last one closed because the nominator was a sockpuppet, not because everyone else there, including yourself, said Keep. That is an odd claim.  Seems like it'd be a snow keep no matter what.  Anyway, there is nothing wrong with the list.  If you want to read about a business that failed, this is a good place to find one.  Almost all the links are blue, aiding in navigation by linking to other Wikipedia articles, with the few red ones have citations to them strangely enough.  Business failures are always mentioned in the news media, and also this is something clearly notable, something an encyclopedia should have, something people can and should learn from.  What did they do wrong?  Why did they fail?   D r e a m Focus  12:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Note: I contacted everyone who participated in the last AFD, who wasn't here already and wasn't banned for being a sock-puppet, since they should be aware of reruns.  D r e a m Focus  12:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - The criteria for inclusion in this list is sufficient for editors to determine if a company belongs. Is there any serious doubt that Enron was a spectacular example of a business failure?  And that it was documented as such in reliable sources?  Inclusion of companies that are borderline cases can be discussed on the article's talk page but do not invalidate the premise of the list. -- Whpq (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: The article under discussion here has been rescue flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron. Snotty Wong   express 19:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Depends - The inclusion criteria for the list is overly vague, and produces a list that can never be practically completed. If someone wants to take the time to define what a notable business failure is, and then cull the list of non-notable business failures, then I would say we should Keep it.  If no one will take the time to do this and the article will sit for a few more years in this state, then I would say we should Delete it until such time that the inclusion criteria can be properly defined.  The ARS have already been notified, perhaps they can devote some time to tightening up this list.  Snotty Wong   express 19:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The inclusion is defined as "This list of business failures collects significant companies who met eventual demise of their well known brand. The causes include criminal proceedings, simple insolvency and are notable for their financial impact in the economy."  D r e a m Focus  21:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Define "significant, "demise", and "well known" in this context. Snotty Wong   prattle 15:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Neutral how does one define a business failure? You can't really define a business failure as such, for that reason I'm neutral. IJA (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * See business failure  D r e a m Focus  21:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * So why are A.F.C. Bournemouth, Crystal Palace F.C. and Portsmouth F.C. in the list? IJA (talk) 02:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you see something that doesn't belong remove it, and discuss on the talk page. If someone came along and added something incorrectly or as vandalism, that doesn't mean the entire article should be deleted.  Normal editing will fix any problems.   D r e a m Focus  10:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I just took these football clubs out. They still exist as going concerns and brands and so have no business being in this list.  This is how such particular entries should be dealt with.  Deleting the entire article for the sake of a handful of incorrect entries would be absurd. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep A definition of "business failure" would be an improvement, but not having a precise definition is no reason to delete this list. Any particular company included incorrectly can be challenged or removed, or rescued with reliable secondary sources. So, keep, but discuss a definition on the article talk page. --DThomsen8 (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Perhaps in the future the list will be split into List of companies that declared bankruptcy, List of companies that were placed in receivership, and others, but in the meantime this is a perfectly acceptable list. Would not have a problem removing the redlinks, but I don't agree with TPH's assertion that the presence of a few redlinks is a reason to delete a list.  UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I think this article is notable, however I do suggest that there should be some sort of criteria to define what is classed as a business failure. However I can't see any strong reasons as to why this article should be deleted, therefore I think we should Keep this article. IJA (talk) 03:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Microscopic fragment of an unreasonably vast list, with insufficiently coherent inclusion criteria. The same information is accessible through the articles on the firms in question and via the "(YEAR) Disestablishments" categories. Carrite (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep and even then, only because it's been flagged for rescue and the subject would be notable enough to rate encyclopedic treatment. If it's not an indiscriminate list, then I'd call it a barely discriminate one-- the only distinguishing info seems to be the year of "failure", which isn't that useful.  If details were to be added, such as what the business was (I shopped at Montgomery Ward and flew on TWA, so I know what those were, but we can't assume that everyone does), then I agree with the person above that this would eventually be broken down into other lists.  If not, I think the outcome next time around will be a delete. Mandsford 14:14, 7 February 2011 (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.