Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Network Video: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Orderinchaos (talk | contribs) →[[Network Video]]: delete |
|||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
:*'''Comment''' That's the problem Mattinbgn, no [[WP:RS]] can be found on this company, who is essentially a national franchise operator. [[User:Thewinchester|Thewinchester]] [[User_talk:Thewinchester|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 01:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC) |
:*'''Comment''' That's the problem Mattinbgn, no [[WP:RS]] can be found on this company, who is essentially a national franchise operator. [[User:Thewinchester|Thewinchester]] [[User_talk:Thewinchester|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 01:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::While sources have not been found, it doesn't mean they can't be found, and if it takes a little work, well, Wikipedia is work in progress. However, if the company itself is reasonably capable of meeting the notability thresholds, sometimes it's best to give it time to develop. [[User:Mister.Manticore|Mister.Manticore]] 01:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC) |
:::While sources have not been found, it doesn't mean they can't be found, and if it takes a little work, well, Wikipedia is work in progress. However, if the company itself is reasonably capable of meeting the notability thresholds, sometimes it's best to give it time to develop. [[User:Mister.Manticore|Mister.Manticore]] 01:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC) |
||
* '''Delete''' per WP:CORP. A store with lots of outlets does not necessarily a *notable* store per Wikipedia policies make. [[User talk:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] 02:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 02:37, 4 June 2007
Procedural nomination after removal of CSD tags. Another example of Australian corpcruft that does not meet WP:CORP. A non-notable privately held company that is a master franchiser of video rental stores. No WP:RS within the article, and what information included is a copyright violation having been lifted straight from the Australian Film Commission website. The only item yielded from a google search this morning not from the company was a Business Case Study from the The Age which had heavy participation from the chain's owner so does not make the grade as a reliable secondary source. Thewinchester (talk) 00:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Thewinchester (talk) 00:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Well, I don't know if it's related to this company, but I know there are other Network Video stores in other places. I'm not sure what to do, but I can get plenty of results on [1] that indicate there's a fairly major chain using the name in the US. I'd suggest disambiguation. Mister.Manticore 00:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The US company is unrelated to this Australian company as far as I am aware, but if it was to survive AfD then a disambig would be appropriate. Thewinchester (talk) 00:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep 400 stores throughout Australia seems to be notable enough provided independent reliable sources can be found. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 00:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment That's the problem Mattinbgn, no WP:RS can be found on this company, who is essentially a national franchise operator. Thewinchester (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- While sources have not been found, it doesn't mean they can't be found, and if it takes a little work, well, Wikipedia is work in progress. However, if the company itself is reasonably capable of meeting the notability thresholds, sometimes it's best to give it time to develop. Mister.Manticore 01:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:CORP. A store with lots of outlets does not necessarily a *notable* store per Wikipedia policies make. Orderinchaos 02:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)