Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of supermarket chains in the United Kingdom


 * 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. This is an uncontroversial, speedy close that meets Speedy keep. Clearly worthy of an article. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 21:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

List of supermarket chains in the United Kingdom

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

Wikipedia is NOT a list; as per Articles for deletion/List of supermarket chains in Bahrain Superchain (talk) 13:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia is not a list? What does that mean?  Maybe the "L" key not working on the keyboard.  I'm not sure the reason for nomination.  Most, users prefer to go to a list in order to navigate through the articles, and Wikepedia has lists crawling out its ears. Mandsford (talk) 14:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. See WP:CLN for the logic. The thing about Articles for deletion/List of supermarket chains in Bahrain is that it doesn't create a precedent, because of WP:OCE.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  15:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't create a precedent, but it does create systemic bias. Dr B Badger (talk) 09:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Account seems to be a SPA. There is a precedent that similar lists are verifiable and maintainable. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 15:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Alright then Superchain, why is there a List Class if Wikipedia is not a list? And why is your name Superchain? It sounds like your name should be deleted. A bloke called AndrewConvosMy Messies 15:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the nom wants to prove a point. Salih  ( talk ) 18:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Unlike the Bahrein article, these are notable. DGG (talk) 19:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Encyclopedic listing of notable entities. Edison (talk) 03:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * keep as it is providing concise encyclopedic information linking notable chains. PaulJones (talk) 13:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Price check for a snowball on Aisle 4-- BTW, would all of these be called the British Aisles? Mandsford (talk) 16:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per "why was this even nominated?" :) Jenuk1985  |  Talk  10:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The Bahrein article didn't have any sources, not even in the first two of the listed chains. This one is slightly better sourced, but still crap. Without references no list. Without additional info, it's nothing a bit of recategorization can't fix. I'm all for lists, but this is the wrong way to go about it. - Mgm|(talk) 16:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep The nominator, ({user5|Superchain}}, has been indefinitely blocked as a vandal and sockpuppet.-- Blue Squadron  Raven  21:01, 5 May 2009 (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.