Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supabarn

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. W.marsh 19:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Supabarn

Supabarn (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Lack of reliable sources and appears to contain original research, appears to be NN and is located only in NSW. Taken to AfD after a prod was contested and no explanation was provided after 24 hours. L337 kybldmstr 06:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The original research part of your argument can be contested in very many ways, however only two need be focussed on. firstly, the Supabarn website provides many details with regard to its store. Secondly, having previously worked at Supabarn I know the inner workings of it and hence the outer workings of it and can claim that their are only facts on the page. Tuddy —Preceding comment was added at 09:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• You can claim it, but unless you reference it appropriately it would count as original research and be removed. And also, articles should not rely on a single source for its information - which is exactly what is happening. Googling for more won't solve the issue, I already tried. There are simply not enough sources to say anything in that article is correct. L337 kybldmstr 06:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Carter | Talk to me 10:34, 2 November 2007 (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.