Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VIP Parts, Tires and Service


 * 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   no consensus. No consensus to delete was reached in this discussion, nor is there reason in policy to impose one. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  04:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

VIP Parts, Tires and Service

 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * Delete per WP:CORP. The claims of notability in the article are insufficient grounds to justify a WP article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Article now contains citation that the company is the largest independently owned automotive parts company in New England. This is especially important in this day of megastores like Pep Boys and NAPA.  Thank you for considering. Hmvont (talk) 19:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Hmvont
 * I don't consider "the largest independently owned automotive parts company in New England" to be a sufficiently notable characteristic for inclusion in WP. However, in the absence of a prescriptive notability guideline for companies we have to rely on WP case law (aka deletion discussions!). -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Excluding the non-independent sources such as the company's own website, there is enough coverage from reliable sources to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * But are they significant? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  Eastmain (talk • contribs)  19:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions.  Eastmain (talk • contribs)  19:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. This company has been around for more than 50 years and has more than 50 locations throughout the northeast U.S.  Anyone who lives in New England (especially Maine) has either bought tires or auto parts from this company, or knows someone else who has bought from them.  Seems like a no-brainer to me. –BMRR (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That is not a valid argument in an Afd. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's not; nevertheless, this company meets the standard of having significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The references contained in the article include magazine articles, trade journal articles, and newspaper articles — in other words, reliable secondary sources. I stand by my keep position. Furthermore, if this is an area of Wikipedia policy that you are particularly passionate about, you should take a look at some of the Wikipedia articles pertaining to New Zealand-based retail companies; I was shocked at how many of them are completely lacking references, and I suspect that a few of them would not meet the WP:CORP guidelines. –BMRR (talk) 00:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I had a quick look at Category:Retail companies of New Zealand and put one of the articles up for speedy deletion. As for WP policy I am concerned at the lack of a prescriptive notability guideline for companies. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Seems kind of WP:MILL. The article tries to establish notability, but I don't think it succeeded. This is not a nationally recognized chain. Per the concerns about WP:CORP, I found a list of the top tire chain Link. The top four have pages, the next six didn't and then I stopped looking. MadCow257 (talk) 03:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Wifione    .......  Leave a message  03:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

 
 * Weak keep There is a conflict between two principles: the GNG, which is adequately met, and a general feeling that the chain is not important enough. I do not know how to resolve it as a general matter, but in this case, being a regional chain is sufficient. I draw the line at local, but requiringnation is too high a bar.  DGG ( talk ) 02:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is easy to claim an article about a company meets WP:GNG since there can be plenty of refs for articles about them. The same goes for bio articles, which is why specific notability guidelines exist for such articles. I don't know if it is spelt out in policy but I feel that a specific notability guideline should trump the generic one. And this is why we NEED a prescriptive notability guideline for companies. It will also be a good way of fighting spam, especially the articles that hide under a cloak of apparent neutrality. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Wifione    .......  Leave a message  08:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - notability by third part sources not established . Sails close to the wind as an advert too.  Velella  Velella Talk 15:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Are we trying to build an encyclopaedia or a business directory? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Lots of mentions in passing in independent third party sources, but no significant coverage in them as per WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * keep I think the sources are close enough and using IAR, think that a chain of this size is clearly notable. Promotional issues aren't a reason for deletion here. Hobit (talk) 05:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not meet the WP:GNG--Ryan.germany (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2011 (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.