Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Reject Shop


 * 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The result was Nominator Withdrawn. I am satisfied that the notability criteria for the article has now been met, and that the significant works of people contributing to this AfD has helped it meet the standard. Thewinchester (talk) 13:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The Reject Shop
Procedural nomination of another Australian corpcruft article after CSD tag was removed. A barely notable chain of retail stores two dollar shops that is unlikely to meet WP:CORP, lacks any references, and fails to demonstrate notability of the subject. As a counterpoint, the company is listed on the ASX but only because it's major shareholder wanted to offload the asset (Which strangely enough was Macquarie Bank). Apart from that, this is where any possibility of notability ends for the subject. Thewinchester (talk) 00:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.  -- Thewinchester (talk) 00:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable chain of discount stores with a national presence and a significant employer. Needs much improvement but sources should not be difficult to find - see here and here for a start-- Mattinbgn/talk 00:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Article certainly needs improvement, but a cursory Google search brings up enough references for a decent stub, I think it's quite notable enough. Certainly doesn't meet the criteria for speedy deletion, what were you thinking? I hope this doesn't result in a repeat of the War on Biscuits. --Canley 04:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've done some expansion and referencing. --Canley 04:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Now referenced, with notability established. Recurring dreams 06:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Extensive network of outlets and solid growth in recent times; the chain has a substantial enough presence on the retail landscape in Australia to meet notability concerns Murtoa 07:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Self-evidently notable, sails through WP:CORP thanks to excellent work from Canley.  Suggest withdrawal of the nomination.  Neil   ╦  09:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Deliberately left this one a day to vote, I bought an excellent laptop case from their Bourke Street store once. :) Appears to meet WP:CORP with the edits made today. Orderinchaos 11:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, bandwagon vote as per above. Commendations to Canley for some excellent work on this article.  Lankiveil 11:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep Clearly meets criteria, notable and well-known organisation. Zivko85 23:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, looks fine. John Vandenberg 03:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Everyones heard of it. &#91;&#91;User talk:Savin Me&#124;Savin Me]] 05:32, 5 June 2007 (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.