Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Word (bookstore) (2nd nomination)

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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Word (bookstore)[edit]

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

Non-notable store. There's a fair number of references in the article, all of which fall into one of two categories: Dead links, or articles in sydneyanglicans.net, which isn't sufficient to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I suspect that all the brick-and-mortar retail stores have gone, and this article needs substantial updating. The 2006 nomination was the second as evidenced by the discussion, making this the third AfD. It doesn't really matter that the references are dead links because WP:NTEMP. It's difficult to research online because "Word" is a common word and the business wasn't known as "Word (bookstore)." The nomination doesn't provide any insight into WP:BEFORE. Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did a bunch of searching on my own and failed to find anything useful. And, yes, you are correct that searching for word is a somewhat frustrating experience. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can't see any notability here. Also hard to verify but that's a side issue. --Lockley (talk) 02:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable retail chain; no claim to notability and no sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:52, 16 July 2017 (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.