Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moto Mart


 * 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 delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Moto Mart

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable store chain. To be honest it probably qualifies for A7 but I figured AFD just to be safe. The only coverage I can find is passing mentions (usually of something related to x was robbed at Moto Mart) etc... CHRISSY MAD ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  22:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  23:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  23:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  23:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  23:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  23:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Do not delete this page! I spent an hour creating it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petro59XtcŪ (talk • contribs) 01:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete No RS, or anything really. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep On page two of search results I found a source from the FDA telling one chain they were in violation of selling tobacco products to a minor. Page three: a source detailing a robbery, another source detailing a separate robbery, and two local business articles saying they were taking over two QuikTrip locations. Page four detailed a theft. There was no page five. Another search on a different engine brought up a lot more: gas station industry news articles, saying they were a top 101 convenience store, a Bloomberg article, and a ton of routine local coverage. was the best source. Probably passes WP:CORPDEPTH. The article needs some reliable sources, but they can probably be found somewhere. SportingFlyer  talk  06:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: Lacks notability. "Probably" is not actually good enough as far as passing WP:CORPDEPTH that states "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability.". The primary criteria is "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization.", and that is pretty clear-cut. The parent company is Moto, Inc. and FKG Oil Inc. is the subsidiary. Refbombing any sources concerning selling tobacco to minors, a robbery or theft at a business location just supports existence. There are "thousands" of smaller businesses that could be listed but Wikipedia is NOT a business directory. Unlike CST Brands, with 1900 stores bought by Alimentation Couche-Tard (Circle K) with 15,000 stores, FKG Oil Inc. is tied with Spinx at #97 on the ["The Convenience Top 101"]. The bottom line, other than the actual wrong title, is that there is nothing that stands out. Sheetz, Inc. has 463 stores so short of actually becoming a yellow page or business directory there needs to be a threshold and being 97 out of 101 should not be it. Because there is a source has not been giving automatic inclusion status and that is a slippery slope we need to stir clear of. Otr500 (talk) 22:35, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - plenty of routine coverage, but lacks significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 21:58, 19 March 2018 (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.