Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viva Supermarket

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 merge‎ to Landmark Group. A clear majority of editors found the available sources to fall short of establishing independent notability for the article subject, with merge beating deletion in terms of support. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 06:13, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Viva Supermarket[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)

Fails NCOMPANY. ~~Poor coverage~~, sources I found online are either sponsored or contain mere trivial mentions of this company. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 00:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Arab Emirates. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 00:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable company doesn't meet WP:GNG. A story as old as time. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per the refused A7, a 77-outlet operation and the first retail discounter in the United Arab Emirates, national newspaper and other coverage now added to the article clearly passes WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:58, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The parent company, Landmark Group, may be notable, but it doesn’t mean its subsidiaries are too. Moreover, the source you added from Gulf News [1] looks to be sponsored content. The third source, from TimeOut Dubai [2], fails ORGCRIT as “store opening” type media coverages are generally trivial. Lastly, both Khaleej Times articles [3][4] are interviews, which are not independent of the subject. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 13:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are incorrect. ~~There is no evidence the Gulf News story is sponsored content.~~ TimeOut does not fail ORGCRIT, I'm not sure what part of that policy you are citing that 'store opening type media coverage is generally trivial'. Sources 3 and 4 are not interviews, but contain quotes - a normal practice for news reporting. There are still three WP:RS pieces here, passing WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 18:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A line on WP:Notability (organizations and companies#Examples of trivial coverage reads “of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops”. The TimeOut article isn’t exactly in-depth and only provides basic information about the opening of Viva stores in the UAE. Sources 3 and 4 do look to be Q&A interviews. Source 3 consists of various paraphrases and quotes from Landmark Group and Viva supermarket CEOs. Source 4, too, quotes various statistical information from the Landmark Group CEO. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 12:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the news coverage of the chain's inception and coverage of its expansion shows that there is coverage to meet WP:GNG and I disagree that this type of coverage constitutes routine coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 13:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ask yourself this: If not for Landmark Group, would Viva Supermarket have received the coverage it did? And would it be notable independently? Sources [5][6][7] focus more on Landmark Group than Viva Supermarket. Viva Supermarket fails ORGIN as its notability relies too heavily on Landmark Group. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 12:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-read the sources replacing "Landmark" with "Petrified Gargoyles" and find that the articles are still about Viva. These reliable sources have taken note of the launch of Viva by Landmark Group. Your argument is basically that notability is being inherited from Landmark Group, but those articles have Viva as the primary topic and are not just incidental coverage in some overall coverage about Landmark Group. -- Whpq (talk) 14:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Landmark Group. Due to WP:PROMOTION. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What promotion? Redirect would only make sense if the entire article needed WP:TNT. -- Whpq (talk) 11:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect seems like the best option. Trivial mentions outside of the parent company. Oaktree b (talk) 20:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, even a cursory glance will confirm the sources are focused on Viva Supermarket and its growth in operations and not Landmark. As the largest discount retailer in the UAE, with several RS sources confirming this, there is notability here. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:41, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Landmark Group. I am not seeing the sources here as serving as a basis for keeping this as a freestanding article, but neither am I seeing the case for removing the information here from the encyclopedia altogether if it can be merged into another article. BD2412 T 03:39, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the article is promotional and the news coverage is mostly announcements of store openings. Merging with the article on the corporate parent is the best editorial choice at this time to fix the promotional issues. No objection to un-merging if there are more detailed references (possibly in Arabic) found by others. Walt Yoder (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. While the promotional angle can be addressed with editing, the sourcing in my opinion fall short of warranting a standalone article. There is verifiable content so I think merge is superior to redirect here. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:22, 31 May 2023 (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.