Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Child World

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 04:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Child World[edit]

Unsourced so presumably original research. Notability isn't established and its hard to avoid commenting that Wikipedia is not a place to record details of every failed business unless it has enduring notability that has been established in multiple independent reliable sources. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Children's Palace had outlets in a lot of states back 20 years ago, so it was a fairly notable failure. There are probably articles about why it failed and Toys 'R Us didn't. Mandsford (talk) 23:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Child World was a big player in the industry before it failed. Its troubles, failed rescue, and demise was widely reported in the business press at the time. Here's just one article [1]. I'll try a deeper search later. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, widespread toy store chain which once had several locations throughout the U.S. Sources do exist; I'll see if I can add anything. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep, once was a major competitor to Toys "R" Us. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 02:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definite keep, was a major player at the time. Asserts notability, easily checked, please consider {{unreferenced}} and similar in future as AFD is not cleanup. Original research is not the same thing as unreferenced. --Dhartung | Talk 21:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it is. Material written without sources can only be original research unless the material is directly taken from a reference. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the subject is notable as a national chain. RFerreira 08:09, 2 December 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.