Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crittendens

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. Sandstein 19:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crittendens[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

small chain of 7 stores, sourced to their own advertisements and newspaper notices. DGG ( talk ) 17:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly notable. Sources currently in article are advertisements or routine news, but there's The Australian (Rare old vintage, 1 October 2010) and possibly more. That the business was taken over and mostly closed or rebranded and there's another business with a similar name may make it more difficult to search. Peter James (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the content. There is a reasonable amount of related WP:NEXIST out there, more than enough to support GNG, including enough I think to expand the article content a bit further, but I am not sure whether the main subject should be the chain of stores or the family of which the stores were a key part. Perhaps the main article should be the multigenerational family with a redirect from Crittendens (stores) to the family article ? Aoziwe (talk) 11:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the nomnation I have made some changes to the entry. These include linking to the abovementioned article in The Australian. I have also linked to a sound recording, available online, of a 2001 interview with one of the principals of the company that deals, in part, with the early history of the company. I will continue looking for additional sources that might shed further light on the 65 year history of the business.(Histragic (talk) 04:41, 28 September 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep some of the sources are weak, but The Australian source from 2010 is very strong given the fact its around for 100years even continuing to trade under the name despite a national retailer purchasing the chain show it is notable. Putting this much under the name of any individual even the founder would be inappropriate as well given many of the event taking place after his passing in 1954. Gnan garra 14:21, 13 October 2018 (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.