Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilkinsons...the Opticians

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 per WP:CSD#A7. For those of you requesting the article be salted, one recreation is insufficient, in my view, to salt. Bbb23 (talk) 01:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wilkinsons...the Opticians

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

Was speedy deleted previously. Honourable local business in Kent, England, with a grand total of 5 shops. Zero independent reliable coverage demonstrated by 3rd party coverage. I have been conversing with the author, who claims not to be the owner/employee of this company, but is apparently getting very angry because his page was deleted. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC) Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surely Wikipedia, being the most comprehensive enclyopedia in the world, should aim to try and have as many articles as possible and it seems strange that you seem to not agree for an article about the 7th largest optician chain/optometrist in the UK. As I am sure you have seen, I have changed the page so it appears more neutral and I will happily include more infomation about the company when I can be confirmed that the page will stay. I am dedicating my day to the survival of the Wilkinsons...the Opticians page. What harm does the Wilkinsons...the Opticians page give you?--Dippoldtheoptician (talk) 10:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The aim is not to write about everything. Most encyclopedias have certain standards - to prevent me from writing about some random person off the street for example, and here is no different. This local business does not meet the criteria for companies, i.e. it is not covered in-depth by independent reliable sources, so I don't see a reason for this article to remain. Please note that Wikipedia is not meant to be a business directory, used to list or promote companies. Funny ^Pika! 13:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Apparently fails WP:CORP, no indepenent sources to verify claims. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 15:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 15:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 15:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not listen to these uninformed Wikipedia users - one of which cannot even spell 'independent' properly.. I will be really depressed for life if you delete the mighty Wilkinsons..the Opticians page and I am angry that the creation of this page is an issue. Wilkinsons...the Opticians is not a controversial subject so why shouldn't there be a page on it. I will re-iterate - Wilkinsons...the Opticians is the 7th largest optician chain in the UK. There is an article on Roger Pope & Partners which is just has one outlet in London. You will keep the page.--Dippoldtheoptician (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about this, but that's the way it is. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We can delete the other article also, by discussion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable business of the most worthy and good kind, but with no reliable sources and no special claim to fame. Very likely its purpose is also advertising. Created by SPA. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable business, suggest salting based on the tone of the SPA ("you will keep the page"... nice) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No real evidence of notability. Consider salting because of comments by SPA above. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)--Guy Macon (talk) 19:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salting is a very good suggestion. No notability established and WP:COI by the SPA is highly likely. MarnetteD | Talk 23:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP and WP:NRVE --Cameron11598 (Converse) 00:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW CLOSE, PLEASE. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:27, 22 April 2013 (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.