Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Office Holdings

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 (feel free to move it now). Yomangani^talk 11:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Office Holdings

Text is a little confusing, but to me, this seems like an advertisement that slipped through. --Czj 06:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable company per WP:CORP. A google news search brings up nothing. --Daniel Olsen 07:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Office is a British High street shop, the article is not an advertisement it is giving a brief history of the company. Other British high street shops have articles written about them, such as Topshop, so this should not be a problem! -- Laura Davis
  • None of those are valid arguments. "If article X then article Y." is a fundamentally flawed argument. If you want to make a valid argument, please cite sources to show that this company satisfies the WP:CORP criteria. Uncle G 12:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - thirty-odd stores around the UK is surely notable. Article may be better placed as something like Office (shoe shop) rather than the holding company. Eludium-q36 11:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • That is not a valid argument, either. Again, please cite sources to show that the company satisfies the WP:CORP criteria, which (quite rightly) are not based upon the number of stores a company has. Uncle G 12:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Office is often cited as a retailer in the UK national press (Times 10 December 2005, 3 January 2005, 8 September 2004, 29 November 2003, 4 October 2003; Guardian 12 June 2004, 6 September 2003, 1 March 2003; Sun 9 December 2003, and that's just the last four years in three papers.) This is brief evidence, not encyclopaedic in itself, but I strongly suggest the volume satisfies WP:CORP 2.1. As noted earlier, it would perhaps be best to consider moving the article to concentrate on the shops rather than the holding company. Eludium-q36 16:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I've seen an Office Holdings on my travels around the uk. If ASDA or Londis gets an article, so should this. Think outside the box 12:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Here is their website: www.officeholdings.co.uk Think outside the box 12:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • And a google search gets quite a responce Think outside the box 12:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Counting Google hits is not research, a company's web site does not satisfy the WP:CORP criteria, and "If article X then article Y." is a flawed argument. Please take your chosen name to heart and stop thinking of counting Google hits and "I've heard of it.". Uncle G 13:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I have also found articles regarding Office and Tom Hunter in the Financial Times, I have referenced these. I think that this should satisfy the WP:CORP criteria. Laura Davis p.s thank you to Think outside the box for your enthusiasm.
    • That's much more like it. Although the articles that you are citing appear to be about Tom Hunter rather than about Office Holdings, and it is the latter that is required here, not the former. (You can use {{cite news}} to format news citations in the correct manner easily, by the way.) See BETDAQ#References for what you should be aiming for at minimum. That is how to demonstrate that the WP:CORP criteria are satisfied. Uncle G 13:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but move to whatever the shoe shop chain is called. A holding company is probably not notable but a chain of shoe stores likely has a much better claim. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• I will change the title/move the article yet as I am new to this I cannot find any info on how to do this, if anyone could tell me that would be great. Thanks. Laura Davis
  • WP:GD shows the rules of the road for the deletion. Section 2.4 says that it's a bad idea to move during the deletion discussion. Assuming that the article remains kept (and I intend no prejudgement) WP:MOVE explains how to move pages; if you encounter problems, you may wish to log a request at WP:RM. Eludium-q36 09:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Office is a feature of every other British high street. Big company. --SandyDancer 01:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable high street office shop. --Oakshade 07:39, 9 November 2006 (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.