Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GardenSite

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 delete. So Why 09:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GardenSite

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

I'm as inclusionist as anyone, but is this really notable? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article which came through the AfC process. Its references confirm a firm going about its business, with local coverage of their charitable donations, but neither that nor the exhibition "Best Online Garden Retail Buying Team" awards indicate encyclopaedic notability, nor does the founder's appearance on a Garden Industry Manufacturer’s Association judging panel. My searches are finding passing mention of products which can be purchased from them, but I am not seeing sources to provide notability for GardenSite as a website or Hall’s Garden Supplies as a company. AllyD (talk) 19:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find anything notable, certainly not the "10 best barbecue awards" Absolutley everything below "Reviews and Awards" should be removed. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can't disagree with the fact that there aren't many notable sources regarding GardenSite or Hall's Garden Supplies as a company, but must point out that it does state that this is a family-run independent Partnership business, not a Public limited company - hence it's day to day business aspects and financial information is not publicly shared across news sites, unlike multi-million pound chain stores, and so notable sources are always limited for smaller companies. Although, they have gained industry-specific awards within their niche, been invovled in charitable causes and received thousands of public reviews all within their country of origin, which when comparing to others within the same niche, does make them stand out enough to be 'encyclopaedic notability' in my eyes. On top of that, Hall's Garden Supplies has been active for over 60 years and the GardenSite for 18 years, so have been around for some time and don't seem like some 'fly-by-night' setup. More notable sources would ofcourse be be ideal, especially based on business facts, but I believe there is enough sourced reputation currently to warrant it being kept alive. Rednawuk (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've removed a couple of inadequate sources/headings mentioned above, updated an exisitng source and added a new one. Rednawuk (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I reviewed the sources in the article and searched for sources but could not find significant coverage. The topic fails Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 01:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as multiple Horticulture Week references does not meet "multiple publications" mandate for Notability. Burroughs'10 (talk) 04:51, 10 September 2017 (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.