Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chobert

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 Speedy delete a7 (for the second time), no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chobert

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

Speedy deletion tag removed by User:The 5th Doctor. There's no indication of notability here, and the only source is wordpress, which is not a reliable source. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 22:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If Pepsi Cola and Harrods have articles, it is unfair to discriminate smaller businesses and the little info that stands on the page is encyclopedic in nature and not aimed to promote; it just said that the owner was young at the time. The 5th Doctor (talk) 23:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Just because articles about other companies exist does not mean that articles about all companies that exist belong on Wikipedia. GB fan 01:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - please keep, i think it should be keeped, its not a promotion abou an special store or product. its just about historical information about that.Hamadbenali— Hamadbenali (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Speedy delete per CSD A7. No notability here whatsoever as the article stands. --Finngall ^talk 23:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no coverage in reliable sources. As far as I can tell this is just a single store. Antrocent (♫♬) 23:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:COMPANY. Zero media coverage. The only way this gets to stay is if it shows up repeatedly on Dilbert. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD A7. —teb728 t c 03:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per the above. Thanks, Matty.007 07:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, that's really placed new light on the discussion. The 5th Doctor (talk) 14:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : i think its a notable article, its just about the history of a brand, and it he is not promoting himself, please keep the article when all other same business have the same article.Hamadbenali— Hamadbenali (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

— Hamadbenali (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete, or even speedy delete (WP:CSD#A7). Nothing in the article or in a web search shows anything remotely close to the level of notability needed to meet WP:CORP. Peacock (talk) 16:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is probably worth noting for the closing admin that there is an admitted conflict of interest (paid editing) revealed on the talk page and the article itself had to be semi-protected due to repeated disruption by multiple apparent socks. Peacock (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2014 (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.