Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supermarkets in Canada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Supermarkets in Canada

Supermarkets in Canada (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Unencyclopedic, unsourced and thus original research, non-notable, possibly POV... no point having it. Plus+ - I don't see how a list clearly based on the memory of one person could be entirely neutral: they could forget some or not consider some noteworthy. It becomes subjective. Plus - it's unsourced and thus original research. Plain and simple. Rambutan (talk) 08:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure I follow your reasoning? How can a list of supermarkets within a certain country be OR or POV? Enlighten me. Melsaran (talk) 09:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:OR and WP:RS. Not sure how POV fits into the picture. /Blaxthos 11:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
This page lists only chains of supermarkets. A list of individual supermarkets would indeed be stupid, but this is not it. Note that similar pages (Supermarkets in the United Kingdom for example) contain information that could not be satisfied by a category. The fact that Wikipedia is not a collection of lists is not a reason to delete lists on sight, unless there is something seriously (and usually inherently) wrong with the list. Hut 8.5 15:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't understand these concerns at all. The fact that something is unsourced does not automatically make it original research. There must be sources to back up the fact that these supermarkets operate in Canada. List of companies by industry are encyclopedic - just look at Category:Lists of companies by industry. I see no biased statements - what exactly makes it POV? Hut 8.5 11:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't see how this is original research or POV at all. It's unsourced, sure, but it can easily be verified simply by checking either the store's Wikipedia article, official website, or both (although sources would be nice). Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 12:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong/speedy keep after seeing the "reason" for deletion. It is ridiculous if we delete an article because "one person wrote it, so they could forget to include some". And since when is everything that doesn't include sources by definition original research? This merely lists supermarkets in Canada. If we need to have multiple sources for simple lists like this, we could as well delete all categories, because none of them cite any sources. I'm sorry, but this looks like a frivolous nomination. Melsaran (talk) 12:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Nothing wrong (Apart from sourcing) with this list at all. ScarianTalk 12:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Melsaran. Videmus Omnia Talk 13:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • keep When an article on a non-trivial subject is found, the first step should be improve it, not delete it. Hmains 20:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete That doesn't really add really more to the category.--JForget 22:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve (by adding some text to go with the list). Why do people keep claiming OR on things like these? This is not new information and that's what OR is. Looking in a phone book does not constitute OR in any way. You do not need to source this sort of information. What you need to source are opinions or statements regarding said information that need to be verified. The fact there's a food store chain in Nova Scotia is self-evident; and besides, most of the links lead to articles with all the sources you want. 23skidoo 17:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but improve - See what JForget said? That can, and should, be changed, as the list is clearly notable and useful, and clearly isn't OR. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 04:44, 18 September 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.