Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Local35 - Wikipedia

Article Images

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. Cbrown1023 talk 02:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable? Outside links? --Hojimachong^talk _con 23:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does this mean? Justinmachus 23:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This means that the article may not be notable, and that it does not cite its sources. --Hojimachong^talk _con 23:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Hojimachong. Hopefully it is now "notable"? Justinmachus 23:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it looks alot better now. I'd better come "welcome" you to the Wiki :-). --Hojimachong^talk _con 23:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! Thanks for your help, I am a total noob. Justinmachus 23:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, blatant spam. Meets criteria (#11) for Speedy deletion: advertisements masquerading as articles Cacophony 23:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I don't really understand how this works. What was written was fact, not opinion, and was in a style emulating the wiki/kidrobot page which is a store very similar to Local35's. How is a store "not notable" if it is noted by an internationally respected organization (GQ) and was voted, by people who exercised their opinions, on citysearch as the BEST in their field? Seeking help, Justinmachus 00:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, what would need to be changed to make it fundamentally different? Nowhere does it say "go support this store" or "I think it's cool" or "people who visit the store and buy things are cool". I just don't understand, but I am willing to change it... Justinmachus 00:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria you pointed out apply to articles for Speedy Deletion, Justinmachus. This is an Articles for Deletion process. I'm going to abstain from the rest of this process, but feel free to notify me if you need help. --Hojimachong^talk _con 01:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a bit spammy, but seems to assert notability. I'm not sure it's worth deleting. Part Deux 15:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - asserts notability, but all external links are to sites affiliated with the company, so there's no evidence of coverage in multiple independent sources, which is needed to show notability under WP:CORP. Delete unless further sources or links are added by the end of this AfD. Walton monarchist89 15:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Internet polls are so vulnerable to ballot-stuffing and other tricks, they can't be reliably used, and I just don't think that one group of people from GQ thinking the store is great can really establish notability. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- locally notable, possibly; possibly mentioned in manazines, but, hey, it's a shop, not a designer label. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Simoncursitor (talk • contribs) 12:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

New additions: Links to additional sources, Portland Mercury and coolhunting.com, added to insure 'notability'. Added pic and neatened up formatting to be more consistent with wiki standards. Added a couple of links to wiki entries of corporate, for-profit, notable designers. Local35 01:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Comments, please?[reply]

Delete as failing WP:CORP. For a single shop business we really do need multiple, independent reliable sources to establish notability and these are sadly lacking. Nuttah68 16:40, 26 February 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.