- 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. ( non-admin closure) — UY Scuti Talk 17:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
National Tyres and Autocare
- National Tyres and Autocare ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails general and corporate notability. No considerable independent coverage by trusted publishers. Mainly maintained by one relatively inactive user, additionally suffers from lack of neutrality and overly promotional tone. Rayman60 ( talk) 01:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. Prominent national UK chain. Of course the article is crappy, who exactly is going to fill that page? - they're a tyre company! This doesn't mean they aren't notable, it means tyre companies don't make sexy WP articles. Appears nom didn't undertake wp:before - a simple google search returns them as the No.1 fast fit tyre company in the UK. Szzuk ( talk) 20:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. Having well over 200 branches clearly makes a company notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - I appear to have misjudged this based on above comments. I did try to find independent and reliable sources but there weren't many I deemed suitable. Once verdict is passed (assuming it will be keep), I will revert my changes to take out the promotional and unencyclopaedic content.
Rayman60 (
talk) 23:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment. I looked though the article history prior to my keep vote and noticed a whole section had been deleted which included three references, which you then replaced prior to nominating for afd. The section isn't terrible and removing referenced material is generally to be avoided, I think it needs a copyedit for tone. Your second deletion did indeed remove promotional material. I won't argue the point if you want to just re-delete (assuming this ends keeps).
Szzuk (
talk) 23:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Response - I had toned it down but then at the end felt like it still perhaps was suitable for a nom so I reverted it temporarily just so commentators could see the article as it was when I stumbled across it. Although some bits were referenced, I consider it wholly unencyclopaedic to state that they have an eBay shop and also quite promotional, as is the link to the discount service they offer. I felt everything in the membership section was not only unencyclopaedic but again biased and non-neutral, painting a private enterprise in a positive light. Obviously those were just my views and considerations when boldly removing it all (bearing in mind that the article hadn't been revised for over a year and had multiple issues already tagged) as per this revision which I felt best toned it down should the article remain: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=National_Tyres_and_Autocare&oldid=693190103 however I am more than happy to cede to whatever others think. Rayman60 ( talk) 01:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment. I looked though the article history prior to my keep vote and noticed a whole section had been deleted which included three references, which you then replaced prior to nominating for afd. The section isn't terrible and removing referenced material is generally to be avoided, I think it needs a copyedit for tone. Your second deletion did indeed remove promotional material. I won't argue the point if you want to just re-delete (assuming this ends keeps).
Szzuk (
talk) 23:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep reasonably well known UK brand, with 200+ branches, and sufficient coverage in reliable 3rd party sources (such as this in The Telegraph). └ UkPaolo/ talk┐ 20:18, 5 December 2015 (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.