Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Stores


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 02:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

National Stores

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable organisation under the notability guidelines of WP:ORG, which requires that an organisation has " significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." There is no news coverage of this organisation and, other than self promotion, not much else online at all. Note that WP:ORG specifically states that "trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep
 * 1. Due to news coverage
 * 2. One will find more results if he or she searches for the names of the name brand stores operated by National Stores. ("Factory 2-U," (2004 and onwards) "Fallas Paredes")
 * For instance http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/2003/04/28/newscolumn5.html discusses how "Fallas Paredes" is closing one of the stores in Houston that it acquired from Weiner's. Even though the company name is actually National Stores, the article uses the brand name
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  C T J F 8 3  chat 02:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 00:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I had added additional references after Wikipeterproject made his first post. I would like for him to re-assess the scenario so I can determine whether I need to look for more sources. Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 01:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. Multiple sources establish clear notability.-- Pink Bull  02:42, 18 March 2010 (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.