Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sweetheart Market
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 Delete. The Placebo Effect (talk) 03:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Sweetheart Market
Non-notable local supermarket. Covered by local papers after it sold its property to a larger chain. Mikeblas (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ~NeonFire372~ (talk • contribs) 03:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - G search showed up some local nostalgia sites, almost all referencing the one-time closing event. WP:LOCAL and WP:NOT#NEWS seem to fit this. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. No reliable sources. J-ſtanContribsUser page 04:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Unverifiable --Ryan Delaney talk 05:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep article indicates multiple instances of non-trivial coverage by reliable sources, thus meeting WP:N. The above comments about this being "unverifiable" and there being no reliable sources are questionable... is The Post-Standard not a reliable source? --W.marsh 06:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Problem is, the only sources available are local. Local notability isn't adequate. Also, WP:N#TEMP. WP:N. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeblas (talk • contribs) 07:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- WP:N does not say anywhere that sources must be non-local... so you seem to be injecting an arbitrary and unnecessary requirement. --W.marsh 15:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Problem is, the only sources available are local. Local notability isn't adequate. Also, WP:N#TEMP. WP:N. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeblas (talk • contribs) 07:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, it's... uh... a supermarket. A local landmark perhaps, but no notability in the wider world. Lankiveil (talk) 12:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC).
- Neutral with question There's mention of the original sign being kept in place. Is it going to be a state or city-recognized Registered Historic Site (or equivalent)? If so, definitely keep. (I wouldn't even pretend to know how to research that.) If not, it's dirt under an Eckerd's now, so delete. ΨνPsinu 15:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:27, 28 December 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.
