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. Move discussion can take place on talk  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wellchester[edit]

Wellchester (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

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

Was nommed back in '09 amidst a flurry of press regarding the collapse of Woolworths Group and how this one shop was singularly notable for opening directly after the closure of a Woolworths branch in this small town. Moving on three years and the store remains only notable for that single event, still only one store in a small town and still basically non-notable in it's own right. Stores which copy the trading style of previous stores has happened before they did it and will happen again so it's not like their story is unique, it's just a good human interest story at best and has no place here. In short, still failing WP:N within its own right three years on and no real sourcing of their continued success through WP:BEFORE after the '09 opening. tutterMouse (talk) 06:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my rationale in the first AFD. The notability is entirely coatracked from the previous tenant of the store, and all sources deal only with one event — the name change. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You're kidding, right? There's a dozen references in the article, and it was the subject of a BBC documentary. That's practically the definition of notability right there. But, if you want, it meets WP:GNG and WP:CORP, to put it in Wikipedia terms. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you? The whole story surrounding this store is like I said, a small town human interest story blown way out of proportion by a one-shot event that went national by association with the collapse of a high street store with a long legacy. Everything about it is inherited from that high street chain including the sourcing and without that or the nostalgia of loss, it wouldn't be notable at all or even have that small window of coverage. tutterMouse (talk) 00:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I don't think the sources (and indeed content) in the article at present back up the assertion that it's either a) non-notable in its own right or b) notable only for a single event. There are multiple examples of national and even international coverage (according to this anyway) about the store itself, the definition of notability according to WP:CORP, and not all of the coverage relates to the initial opening - sources also talk about its popularity after opening [1] and its enforced change of name [2] [3]. And just a few hours after the nomination was posted there was this development in the story, which changes things again. Sorry, but I'm just not seeing how this is a deletion candidate given the depth and breadth of coverage available. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Nice sourcing but it isn't much good as it only shows it's of local interest after the whole nostalgia trip has worn off and the press and the general public has moved on elsewhere. An enforced change of name doesn't mean anything, it's little better than name rights squatting nor does how it's closing mean much either even if a large industry magazine paid it minor attention. tutterMouse (talk) 00:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• One of the name-change sources is from the BBC, which demonstrates at least somewhat more than just local interest, but the main reason I mentioned these was to challenge the one-event argument since we can find sources which cover other aspects of the store's history. International coverage for one event followed by two years of sustained local and occasional national coverage for other reasons is more than enough to meet WP:CORP as I'm reading it, especially since WP:ONEEVENT as currently written applies only to biographies... Alzarian16 (talk) 11:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The store generated a lot of coverage in the press at the time and is still being mentioned. CodeTheorist (talk) 12:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, key words there being "at the time" as it was little more than a human interest story blown hugely out of proportion by an eager press covering the little guy stepping into the big guy's shoes in the wake of the death of a store the public didn't know they had until it left. Barely anything but "hey, remember when this happened?" followups which are usually related in whole to the company it tried to clone. The section on the copycat attempt of another failed store is laughable and shouldn't even bear mentioning in the article, much less used as a reason to keep. If WP:ONEEVENT applied equally to things like this instead of merely BLPs, it'd fall foul of it immediately. It isn't so it's probably lucky. tutterMouse (talk) 00:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – The topic passes WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Examples include: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability is not determined by the personal opinion of editors such as the nominator because it is our policy that Wikipedia is not censored. There are plenty of good sources and the notability which derives from such sources not expire. Warden (talk) 12:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Excuse me? Notability might not be determined by personal opinion but this article's fate is determined by it. I have no idea where you think deletion is equivalent to censorship but it certainly doesn't apply here. Sourcing might not expire but this article is WP:RECENT writ large as it relates to a month or two during early 2009 in the UK for one single store in a small that is due to close three years on from the creation out of the ashes of a much bigger and long-standing company. Don't WP:INHERIT and WP:RECENT mean anything in this? tutterMouse (talk) 00:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Do all of you not realize that literally every source is from the same very narrow window of time? Does that not suggest a WP:ONEEVENT to you? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets the GNG. One event is a reason to keep, in this case. Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards.  The Steve  01:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Move The article is primarily (entirely) about a single event, not about the store in continuation. The article's title should reflect that. --Nouniquenames (talk) 05:04, 16 July 2012 (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.