Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hobbycraft

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. Withdrawn by nominator Tony Fox (arf!) 23:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hobbycraft

Disambiguation page for which none of the entries have an article. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a major retailer in Europe and definately notable. The article should focus on this business and not be a disambiguation page. Lumos3 (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance you could change it to being a decent stub on the retailer? I'll gladly withdraw if someone does.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep this is a well know business in the UK. [1] If something doesn't yet have an article that doesn't mean it's not notable. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Ok I could help with an article- probably not tonight though :)Sticky Parkin 22:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The canada business is not as notable in WP:RS, but has google hits, so we'd have to discuss on the article's talk page whether this should be a disambig or not. Sticky Parkin 22:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three cheers for Lumos3 and Sticky Parkin for changing this from a useless disamg page to an informative article! I happily withdraw the nom.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment edit conflict- I like to think I've now improved the article. I wish people would use google news at least before nominating subjects in future.:) Thanks for withdrawing, Fab :) Sticky Parkin 22:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick comment -- if this had been an unref'd article, I certainly would have done a gnews/gsearch. However, it was a disamb page where there were no existing articles. Long consensus at AfD is that such pages get deleted, whether the subjects are notable or not, as we don't need to disambiguate between non-existent articles. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:31, 3 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.