Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Millie's Cookies


 * 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 - Yomangani talk 16:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Millie's_Cookies
Page does not appear to be any more than an advert Ringbark 22:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable company. Relatively NPOV, although that could be improved. Skittle 23:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete Appears to be an advert. scope_creep 23:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete Spam/advertisment. Xdenizen 23:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ad for division of company. There does not appear to be any compelling reason to cover this separately, so merge any usable content to parent Compass Group. JChap2007 23:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per JChap2007. --- RockMFR 23:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Stong Keep A chain with over 100 locations not notable? I beg to disagree.  The unobjective advert aspect of the article means it needs to be changed, not deleted.  --Oakshade 00:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And besides, these stores are prime staples at major railroad stations like Victoria Station and Euston Station (I admit to being a frequent customer :-)). --Oakshade 00:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That you are a customer is irrelevant. Wikipedia would be a mess if that were a criterion.  If the company is as notable as you assert, it should be easy to demonstrate with cited sources that it satisfies the WP:CORP criteria. Uncle G 00:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The being-a-customer note was an obvious irrelevant aside attempting to bring some levity. Sorry you took it so seriously.  Anyway, 100+ store chain is notable.  If you dissagree, that's a POV dissagreement.  I'd like to see some British people vote as that's where this company is highly visable. --Oakshade 00:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Wrong. It's not POV at all.  In fact, quite the converse.  The number of stores in a chain is not a criterion exactly because where to set the bar is completely arbitrary, just as judging companies on numbers of employees or annual turnovers is setting arbitrary bars.  The primary WP:CORP criterion, in contrast, simply requires published works of appropriate provenances and depths. By the way:  A reason for involving British people is most definitely not the one that you have (Notability is not subjective.  Wanting more subjective opinions leads to a bad encyclopaedia.), but merely that British people will be able to locate and to cite the necessary published works more easily. Uncle G 01:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually it is POV. Many people think that a 121 store chain in itself is notable and apparently your POV is that it's not. And in the morning when it's daytime in Britain, we'll see what some British people have to say about that.  --Oakshade 02:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Your statement is begging for who and fact, and is, quite simply, wrong. The criteria are WP:CORP, and your substitute criterion is arbitrary and systemically biased.  Please devote your efforts towards satisfying the WP:CORP criteria, and stop wasting time putting forward criteria that have long since been shown to be fallacious. Uncle G 02:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Citing the scope of a company is not wasing time and not fallacious. And there's already 2 WP:RS in the article addressing WP:CORP. You don't agree with that.  You've said that.  --Oakshade 02:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it featured in the Manchester Evening News . :-) That has some info that the article might like, as well. Skittle 00:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You are experiencing firsthand the benefits of focusing on satisfying the WP:CORP criteria. Aim for as much as BETDAQ and you'll have made a good case. Uncle G 01:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Cute, but no. 12 references are not needed for a retail stub. If I had a dime for all the non-contested articles with no references, I'd be Warren Buffett's boss.  --Oakshade 01:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 12 published works will be, as I said, a good case. Articles for deletion/BETDAQ and Articles for deletion/BETDAQ (2nd nomination) demonstrate that this approach is the one to take.  The results largely speak for themselves.  Moreover "If article X then article Y." is a fallacious argument, for obvious reasons.  You also appear to have completely overlooked our Verifiability policy. You've been shown the criteria that apply.  Stop making fallacious arguments, and work towards showing that the WP:CORP criteria are satisfied.  If you don't, and simply continue making fallacious arguments, you won't make a case for keeping this article. Uncle G 02:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please stop the personal attacks. And you've already said you think there should be 12 references.  And citing 2 WP:Reliable Sources (see changes in article) seems to contradict your attack of "completely overlooking" Verifiability.  An apology would be accepted. --Oakshade 02:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You're being overly sensitive. There have been no personal attacks that I have been able to discern. Also Uncle G did not specify 12 references. You made that inference yourself. Ohconfucius 08:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The user twice cited that BETDAQ AfD with 12 references and actually said "12 published works will be, as I said, a good case." And he repeatedly attacked me for making "fallacious" arguments and having "completely overlooked" Verifiability when I directly addressed WP:CORP by inserting two WP:RS into the article.  He just wouldn't let up in repeating these attacks.  We are allowed to cite our opinions.  The attacks were unwarranted and, while I don't expect it, the user should apologize.  --Oakshade 15:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * (de-indent): If you add more sources, even if they appear to repeat some things there will be differences in their coverage of the topic. By adding as many sources as you can you will be making it easier for anyone who wishes to expand the article in future, and if one source link goes stale the reader can still check others. There is no cap on the number of sources you can include. Kavadi carrier 03:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Update / Comment I erased the ridiculous menu listing and added a very reliable reference. More tweeking will be done. --Oakshade 00:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable UK high-street cookie provider should meet WP:CORP. Catchpole 07:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I am the user who nominated this article for deletion. Following the slashing and burning and replacement by Oakshade, I would say that by now we have the beginnings of a worthwhile article about a significant retail chain. Of course, it's all down to what the consensus says now, but I think the article as it now stands is worth keeping. Ringbark 18:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Catchpole. If this does not meet WP:CORP, then our guidelines are failing us, not vice-versa.  Yamaguchi先生 05:56, 9 November 2006
 * Strong Keep Notable UK brand. Househould name.
 * 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.