Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winc

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. After multiple re-lists, the trend of the editors' consensus seems to have moved towards keep, with no opposition from either the original nominator or other editors. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 05:05, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Winc

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Standard trade papers reporting change of name. scope_creep (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This used to be Staples Inc in Australia and New Zealand; article is needed to make this reference and definitely passes WP:GNG. Pesa881 (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A simple small paragraph in Staples could provide the details. All the reference in this are Churnalism, except one, which is the Sydney Morning News, and that is a name drop. scope_creep (talk) 11:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know about New Zealand, but Staples was big in Australia. Winc took over Staple's shops there, which makes it worth the article. Pesa881 (talk) 12:06, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As per Pesa881.Redirect to Staples, but do not delete first, because editors in the future may prove notability and recreate the article, that way the page history will be preserved. -Henry ^TALK 04:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:HenryMP02 Pesa881 is SPA account and the creator of the article. The standard policy for this type of article is a redirect. scope_creep (talk) 08:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. I will update accordingly. -- Henry ^TALK 18:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The former Staples stores in Australia and New Zealand will now have different designs, merchandise and strategies than the Staples stores in the United States and Canada. Mixing the two together in a single article is a recipe for confusion. Moreover, Winc New Zealand has apparently been sold, or is about to be sold. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU1807/S00112/commission-approves-purchaser-for-winc.htm https://www.reseller.co.nz/article/643358/rich-lister-swoops-winc-nz/ An infobox that combined financial figures, store count and employee count for Winc and Staples would be meaningless. Winc is already notable in its own right, and the ownership change is fundamental to that notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:14, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a major national chain, which is a sufficient claim of significance. A redirect to Staples Inc. would not be appropriate as that page states: "In 2016, Staples divested its Australian and New Zealand businesses...". These are now unrelated businesses, separately owned and operating under separate brands. A redirect would be confusing to the readers. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2018 (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.