Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Automatic centre

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. John254 22:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic centre[edit]

Automatic centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

[1] It exists and there are press releases, but there's no evidence of notability. Appears to be just another electronics chain. Claim of 'pioneer' seemed enough to avoid a speedy. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 14:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No sources in the article for the moment. GoogleNews does produce 7 hits[2], but they basically contain cursory mentions of the store and no in-depth coverage. Does not satisfy WP:N based on the sources available. Nsk92 (talk) 14:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Neutral for now, in view of references added by Eastmain. They certainly improve the article but do not seem sufficient yet to pass WP:N. I understand the problem with systemic bias in the coverage of this geographic area on WP and am willing to stretch WP:N quite a bit here, but I'd still like to see more sources before going to keep or weak keep. Nsk92 (talk) 03:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As there are no reliable sources cited, I am persuaded that the article does not comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was asked to revisit this AFD and I now confirm my opinion. The first two refs are inaccessible, the second two are press releases. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added some references, but I'm not sure how useful they are. Newspapers in the Philippines don't seem to show up on Google News as comprehesively as North American newspapers do, so it's harder to find good references. --Eastmain (talk) 01:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: I cannot offer an opinion on the sources, as they seem to require registration to view them in full, but I wish to err on the side of countering geographic bias. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 03:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Back at the request of Eastmain. I think these sources only confirm it exists, not that it's notable per WP:CORP. While bias could be an issue, I think it's more a case of Wikipedia not being a directory of every company that's existed. Just because it exists in the US, Philippines or Timbuktu doesn't mean it warrants an encyclopedia article. That's at the crux of my issues with this article and subsequent nom TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 03:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I can vouch that Automatic Centre is among the first three or so retailers of appliance products that will come to the mind of Metro Manila residents, though I could not assert the same as for other cities or urban centers in the Philippines. However, its somewhat more ubiquitous competitors, Abenson and Anson's, do not have their own Wikipedia entries. Anyo Niminus (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with the fact that the bigger competitors of this chain do not have their own pages yet. It is not the fault of this chain that nobody created articles about them yet. However, personal assurances and WP:IKNOWIT arguments are not enough to satisfy either WP:V or WP:N, even when coming from well established and respected editors like you. Nsk92 (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing to keep. I'm just adding a local boy's perspective to help build consensus on whether the article satisfies notability. It may be difficult to establish more quantitative evidence when it comes to older Philippine businesses such as Automatic, as many of them have not bothered to establish any presence on the Web. If this helps -- Automatic has branches in some of the country's largest malls, but I think it is at heart a locally-oriented family-owned enterprise which has not bothered to undertake massive expansion or public listing in the stock exchange. But because it has endured for several decades, it has somewhat strong name recall, at least in Metropolitan Manila. Anyo Niminus (talk) 16:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's at least two Manila Bulletin articles archived in the Main Library of UP Diliman, one for Benito Lim and the other for the Automatic Center. That should cover verifiability (if a UP student/faculty has time to go there then it is verified). Both are dated 1998 so I think it they are not yet digitized. --Lenticel (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jonny-mt 05:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per added references Carter | Talk to me 10:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and suggest speedy close. References have been added, solving the chief problem. This is a consumer business with a public face. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are sources in the article which establish notability. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Automatic_centre&oldid=1137586649"