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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United Furniture Warehouse[edit]

United Furniture Warehouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Page reads like an advert. The previous version (April 2009) did not assert notability, and was little more than an advert. Martin451 (talk) 02:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Note: Article has been almost completely rewritten and nominators concerns seem to have been alleviated. –xeno^talk 04:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - national chain. Needs a cleanup. –xeno^talk 02:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That reads much better now, and my concerns have been alleviated. Martin451 (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unless someone provides reliable and independent sources with significant coverage. Running TV ads does not provide inherent notability in Wikipedia. Edison (talk) 02:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Please take another look. I'll be working a bit more on it, but as you can see it's easily sourcible, and obviously notable. –xeno^talk 03:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Major national chain, hasn't everyone in the nation heard of this? If you delete this, then you need to start deleting stuff like Target Corporation. Easily meets WP:CORP Nfitz (talk) 03:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If that is your standard, then I HAVE NEVER HEARD OF IT. Edison (talk) 04:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Aren't you in the U.S.? –xeno^talk 04:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment It got a little coverage when its U.S. operations failed and were closed. Only television viewers in the few states it operated in heard its supposedly "catchy" jingle. Whatever nation it operated in before its massive retrenching, someone in AFD asserting that they are familiar with it, is still original research and does not satisfy the requirement for multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage required by Wikipedia's notability guideline. The limited coverage of it does not seem up the the level of coverage we have required in the past for businesses. Edison (talk) 13:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Have you looked at the article again since you voted? –xeno^talk 14:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I noted that that it's a major national chain, and that would have though that everyone in the nation has heard of it. As the company is Canadian, if you haven't heard of it, then you are likely a foreigner ... Nfitz (talk) 22:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  In theory, someone from out east might not have heard of it, but based on Edison's contributions I would hazard a guess he's American. I've queried him on his talk page as his comments subsequent to the re-writing of the article give the impression he hasn't actually looked at it. As the nominator has affirmed that his concerns have been resolved, Edison's !vote is the only one holding up a snow closure. –xeno^talk 22:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep National Canadian chain, satisfies WP:CORP easily. - 2 ... says you, says me 13:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The six provided sources are reliable and independent Rirunmot (talk) 16:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not really like an advert at this point. Verifiable and notable. What more do you want? Ntsimp (talk) 20:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the above arguments. The chain is quite notable. --FlyingPenguins (talk) 01:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above chain is very notable. --Kyle1278 03:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep My memory isn't always five-star, but didn't this chain also have stores in Idaho, Montana, and North Dakota for a while? They've been in Southern Ontario for at least 15 years, and in my city for about 5. They're going pretty strong and they're well-known in Canada. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 07:14, 11 July 2009 (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.