Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JustSaveFoods

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 of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 02:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] JustSaveFoods

Not notable supermarket

• Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 03:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep If you delete it will keep coming back, if you protect it from recreation I will make other forms of it and will keep putting it back once the protect blank is over.McBeer 03:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

And I'm sure it will keep getting deleted. PJM 14:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Wow, McBeer, I'm impressed with your cleverness. Nobody else has ever thought of doing that before. Well, it's hardly worth voting delete this article, you've got an answer for everything. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Empty article. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 13:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - although this suggests that "JustSaveFoods" is actually a franchise or a chain, it has only 4 locations and is limited to one state. There is apparently nothing to be said about them other than their address (and that they carry Polar brands). BD2412 T 13:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. PJM 14:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Why McBeer is threatening to defy consensus to keep this stub for a non-notable shop is utterly beyond me. --Last Malthusian 15:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - love the threats of vandalism. Always a good way to push for keep *cough*. Small and junky doesn't seem like its making any serious claims of notoriety. 4 stores is maybe notable though. Let's see if there's one for Roelf Vos Supermarkets, which also has 4 stores. If not, then I'd say delete this. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep since Roelf Vos exists. lol. Well, we have to be consistent. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Insert witty comment here. Lord Bob 16:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• As per BD2412, the WP:CORP criteria are not satisfied. Delete. Uncle G 20:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and McFlush the author. Avalon 22:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and temp-ban McBeer for stupid threats.
• Delete per nom. If it keeps coming back, keep deleting it. If that doesn't work, protect it from re-creation. Watch for other forms of the article and delete them to. And suggest to our developers that they add a feature that would block people from editing. It could be called "blocking," or something. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• comment why does Wikipedia delete articles just for being about things you find unimportant.15:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Which you are you referring to? Please check out WP:CORP and provide some legitimate reasons why your article should stay, based on the existing guidelines. I'll be more than happy to reconsider my vote if you can make a strong case - but pointing your finger and promising to violate policy will get you nowhere. PJM 16:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Many people may be familiar with one of the 4, but may check here to find others.Ridnik 18:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

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.