Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Needs Convenience

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 of the debate was Keep. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS 09:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needs Convenience[edit]

Advertisement for non-notable company. Naconkantari 04:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: notable Eastern Canada convenience store chain -- Samir धर्म 04:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: notable Eastern Canada convenience store chain -- --Vic 05:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Chains of convenience stores are often notable. 7-Eleven has its own category at Category:7-Eleven and several other convenience stores chains already have articles in Wikipedia. This one is located in Atlantic Canada. Convenience stores aren't fun places to work, but they do employ a lot of people, and if a chain is big enough or distinctive enough, it's notable. TruthbringerToronto 05:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable per WP:BUSINESS --Alphachimp talk 06:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment and by that I mean per WP:CORP --Alphachimp talk 15:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now forgive me if I'm wrong, but from all I can tell Needs is not even a corporation at all & doesn't even have their own website (or at least I couldn't find one). Otoh the Sobeys website tells me that Needs is a franchise brand of Sobeys. So how does this meet WP:CORP? ~ trialsanderrors 15:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why do we have Sleep Inn when it's a part of Choice Hotels? Why do we have Buick when it's a part of General Motors? It's owned by Sobeys but is not connected with them, they are two separate franchises under one corporate ownership. BoojiBoy 17:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • T&E:FEQ Buick is long enough to be spun out from GM just for length alone. This one is a fopping three-liner. ~ trialsanderrors 18:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Buick->GM was a reductio ad absurdum, not a false equivalent. Sleep Inn is closer to a proper analogy. A notable chain owned by another, larger notable chain is still notable. BoojiBoy 21:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Buick->GM was a reductio ad absurdum Uh, No. And whether Sleep Inn will survive an AfD/Merge nomination is another question. Reads a bit like copyvio. Not exactly what we strive for. ~ trialsanderrors 21:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Well, I didn't really read the article so it may be a copyvio. And it's interesting that you just say "Uh, No" rather than responding. Perhaps you might wish to read the reductio ad absurdum article so you understand the point I was making? BoojiBoy 21:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I know RAA well enough. I gave two conditions on why I don't think Needs should have its own entry. I don't even have to check whether Buick has its own webpage or not, or whether it passes the criterion for independent news coverage. ~ trialsanderrors 23:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buick does have an article >--Pat 01:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. A chain of 143 franchises is notable enough. --Jacknstock 06:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Sobeys. Newfiecruft. ~ trialsanderrors 06:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable enough. --Coredesat 07:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a major convenience store chain in this part of the world. And I'm not biased since I used to work there (thank heavens I don't anymore). Kirjtc2 11:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They're all over Atlantic Canada, passes WP:CORP easily. BoojiBoy 13:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- notable, needs expanding -- MrDolomite 14:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not an advertisement in any way. The article is factual and dispassionate. Ground Zero | t 16:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going with the keep side; regional retail chains with 150 locations are notable enough. Bearcat 18:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThey have an article on Mac's Convenience Stores why not needs ? --Pat 20:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Expansion is needed, however --ZakuSage 22:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's not notable. --Bigtop (customer service - thank you for your cooperation.) 22:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is thats because its not in the USA ? --Pat 23:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Expansion is needed, however --Vic 14:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • AFD is not a vote, there's no reason to "vote" twice. BoojiBoy 14:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, very notable in Atlantic Canada. Expansion is needed. --FrankCostanza 17:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, very notable in Atlantic Canada its the same as Macs and 7 -11 why does someone thinks it needs to be deleted because its not in Ontario ?. Expansion is needed --JO 02:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Chains of convenience stores are often notable. 7-Eleven has its own category at Category:7-Eleven and several other convenience stores chains already have articles in Wikipedia. This one is located in Atlantic Canada. Convenience stores aren't fun places to work, but they do employ a lot of people, and if a chain is big enough or distinctive enough, it's notable . Why is this going to be deleted is it because its not big enough or is it mainly in Atlantic Canada--Bill poster 21:22, 26 June 2006 (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/Needs_Convenience&oldid=1138119300"