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 no consensus. Closing as a non-admin closure. Matt (talk) 02:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wellworths (GB)[edit]

Wellworths (GB) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Someone took over a former Woolworth's and turned it into a new store just the other day. Only two of the sources even mention the Wellworth's store. Yes, the article is fairly new, but given the circumstances I'm very tempted to say it's just a WP:ONEEVENT case. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. WP:ONEEVENT covers biographies of living persons, which is not the purpose of this article. The article is poorly written, and its title probably needs to be revised, but that is not grounds for deletion. KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, ONEEVENT maybe isn't the best way to put it. More like ONETHING but that doesn't exist. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 20:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 20:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's not notable right now, could be should the business expand to more branches but right now it's riding on inherited notability from the former business. treelo _radda 20:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Treelo said exactly what I was trying to say but couldn't find the words to say. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve Jenuk1985 | Talk 20:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Why? Just voting without reason carries no weight. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, why are you quoting an essay at me? "This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors on Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Heed them or not at your own discretion." Jenuk1985 | Talk 20:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Because just saying "keep" is hardly an argument. Deletion discussions are consensus, not votes, so just saying "keep and improve" without a reason has absolutely no weight in discussion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No reason why it shouldn't add to consensus, I am saying keep, followed with a suggestion of improving. Please can you tell me what is wrong with that? I am trying, but struggling to take your comments in good faith Jenuk1985 | Talk 21:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think he's asking for you to provide a reason as to why you think it should be kept, nothing hostile meant by it. treelo _radda 21:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This single local store has (for reasons which escape me) featured twice in significant features on the BBC's Breakfast news. This may confer a degree of notability, although I don't really think there's a place in an encyclopedia for a shop like this. Maybe a mention in the Woolworths article would suffice?--Michig (talk) 20:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe but as it is it doesn't exactly confer notability as most of the sourcing which exists is because of the circumstances surrounding it, not because the store has anything of note outside of it. It's all inherited notability for the sourcing, if it sprang up alone before Woolworths collapsed you wouldn't have heard anything from the national press regarding it. treelo _radda 21:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I can't find anything specific in WP:N to suggest that this doesn't meet the notability guideline. Yes it may be a scrape through, but thats enough. Jenuk1985 | Talk 20:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Woolworths Group#Wellworths. Whilst there has been some coverage in the media, it really is almost inherited notability from Woolworths. I suggest redirect this one to Woolworths, then should the coverage continue it can easily be recreated from the history. --GedUK  22:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - clear case of inherited notability, which of course doesn't exist. Even in the current climate, the opening of a new shop would not even have been given the time of day by the local newspaper had it not been for the Woolies connection -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It's definitely notable, the media coverage has been considerable, it's a unique endeavour and there are plans for expansion. The way in which the store has been reopened makes it notable. This isn't about whether or not it's important, it's about whether or not it's interesting enough to enough people to be on here, which it is. Tom walker (talk) 11:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Whilst it is interesting now, I can't see it being held in the same regard come five years from now when this "unique" endeavour may have failed. That's just me navel-gazing I know but right now it's recentism making it interesting, it's what it is connected to what makes it notable and notability isn't inherited. Should it make itself successful and manage more stores beyond a local chain then it could be notable sure but it's just one store caught up in a flurry of nostalgia and emotion because it is copying the retail practices of a recently dead one. treelo _radda 11:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The issue of inherited notability is irrelevant to the question of deletion. The term Wellworths is clearly useful for searching and so consideration of alternatives to deletion has not been completed, as required by WP:BEFORE. "To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail." Colonel Warden (talk) 13:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - worldwide media coverage, just read a German article about it.[1] --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 16:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable business; recentism is temporarily working together with inherited notability, nostalgia, appreciation of a witty pun, and "But what if it's big someday? to give an illusion of importance. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - User:Orangemike nailed it. Eusebeus (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey, I mentioned those things too! I gets no respect... treelo _radda 23:48, 17 March 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.