Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Tuffins

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 delete. Zero substantial coverage in reliable sources. The "keep" opinions are at odds with applicable guidelines. Sandstein (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Tuffins

[edit]
Harry Tuffins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Almost identical to the Four Lanterns AfD last week which was an article on a small chain of regional local takeaways. While the article does provide sources it does not asert any notability and they appear trivial in nature, which is the primary criterion from WP:ORG. Most of the information comes from its own website and as we know Wikipedia is not a PR wire to get a company's name out there possibly applies -- in short, nothing that proves its notability.

Obviously, I have tried to raised the issue of notability on a number of occasions but there seems to be ownership issues as User:Maxburgoyne defends the article without wanting to discuss the issue and just removes any tags without discussion. I have tried to discuss the issue on the talk page but this editor seems to take it personally, so I thought the community should decide. Vintagekits 14:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep, Of course I feel some connection to an article I largely created.I do not work in a the shop! Only 3 out of 13 references are to the company website.
A brief review of Vintagekits behaviour on wikipedia will illustrate my reluctance to engage with him.
I cannot see why this article fails the notbaility guidelines. Again, he who asserts must prove and not by citing an irrelevant example.
Let the Admin decide?--MJB 14:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Harry Tuffins. A few points:
  • The article is well-referenced,
  • The company is of real local significance,
  • It is referenced by 5 other wikipedia pages,
  • At least 7 users have contributed to it,
  • Finally, who asserts must prove. Why remove it?

--MJB 15:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, only five registered users (that includes both of us) have ever edited the article - 2 of which just made very minor edits, 2 others just to question its notability - each time you dismiss this, - the rest of the edits to the article were made by yourself. You refered to another editors questioning of its notability as nonsense, did you not want to engage with him also because of his previous conduct also? There is no need to personalise this - please focus on the article - if I had to guess I would say you either worked their or owned the shop. However, all of this is irrelevant and does not address notability. As for "who asserts must prove" - I have shown that if fails WP:N and WP:ORG but its not my decision to delete it, it is the communities - instead of arguing with me I would advise the you convince them of its notability instead of arm waving and bickering with me. regards--Vintagekits 15:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. To quote WP:N Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." The article deals with a subject -- a feature, amounting to an institution, of the life of the area in question -- which is worthy of being noted (no less so, than, say, a local sports club, huge numbers of which are written about in Wp) and one which has attracted and does attract notice. That the subject might be thought "unfamous" or judged "unimportant" by any individual user of the Wikipedia is irrelevant in the context of the proposal to delete the work that has been done here. -- Picapica 15:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Hmm. So much for your I am now going to withdraw from commenting on this AfD unless specifically requested promise. Shouldn't you be reporting that specific request here if you think that MJB should be disclosing his contacts with other editors? At least they are public. MJB could always have e-mailed me if he was trying to do anything underhand (I, for one, am always open to e-mail contacts from like-minded, or even unlike-minded, fellow editors). It is for you, who wish to change the status quo, to demonstrate why the article should be deleted. I have stated why I think this article deals with a noteworthy subject. So far all you have done yourself is mention a discussion about another article altogether. -- Picapica 16:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC) (Not "the first of the canvassed editors" by the way.)[reply]
  • Comment, I have quite clearly outlined in the opening paragraph why I feel the article fails WP:N - as I did almost identically for the Four Lanterns AfD, which was also a small localised chain of 5 or so outlets like this one. If you can give me a reason why these particular petrol stations are notable then I would be delighted to reconsider - however, I can see nothing of note which is contained within the article. As for you not being canvassed, on that score its case closed. regards --Vintagekits 16:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Other editors may be interested to note that User:Vintagekits has edited the wording of his point about my being "the first of the canvassed editors" after I had responded to it (compare [1]). Since he appears to be hot on spotting policy breaches, he might like to give us chapter-and-verse for this particular infringement, as it surely must be, of the rules of honest and open debate on Wikipedia. -- Picapica (talk) 11:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this supermarket chain is notable in the Shropshire area and is an example of a smaller chain of supermarkets, one which has not been swallowed up by the big boys. David 21:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant delete I really wanted to say keep, as I agree with David's sentiments, but the sources in the article at the moment are just too weak - far too much is sourced from the company's own website, directory-style listings or bikers' blogs, rather than respectable secondary sources. My own fifteen minutes of searching, and the fact that the sourcing hasn't been improved in the six months the article's been up lead me to believe that the sourcing is unlikely to improve. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 22:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep although User:Maxburgoyne did post a message on my talk page I'm extremely glad he did. This company has a very large image throughout Mid Wales and the Marches, such that it can almost be said to have gained 'folklore' status for its cheap prices. It shouldn't just be removed because some people haven't heard of it, or it doesn't have enough references. As has alredy been pointed out it does have a number of references away from the company website.--Fuelboy 17:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. NISA is a buying group and not a company like Tesco. It would not be correct to merge. Can you sign your contribution? --MJB (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To merge the Harry Tuffin article with NISA would appear odd, as the Tuffin's article has a lot more info on it, it would be over powering. --Fuelboy (talk) 13:34, 18 November 2007 (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/Harry_Tuffins&oldid=1069223406"