Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rusf10 (talk | contribs) at 22:21, 19 January 2018. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

George Street Co-op

George Street Co-op (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, fails WP:ORG and a search reveals very few sources, not enough to establish notability. Rusf10 (talk) 07:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. 09:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. 09:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. 09:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep A search reveals plenty of good sources. The nomination is false. Andrew D. (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Your assessment of the sources is false. There are very few sources that have more than a passing mention.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

FYI, - Added another source and working on a few more from the local NJ news outlets. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep -Notable and reliably sourced, even if it is currently a stub, that is no reason for deletion. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Questions for nominator 1) We've heard from participants here who have found sources, yet there is no apparent effort to have complied with WP:BEFORE. Where is the analysis of potential sources and alternatives to improve the article? Simply asserting that "Your assessment of the sources is false", without any evidence of an appropriate good-faith effort to find sources, accomplishes nothing. 2) The header for this AfD -- and every other one in Misplaced Pages -- states that the nominator must "... consider alternatives to deletion. If you think the article could be a disambiguation page, redirected or merged to another article, then consider recommending "Disambiguation", "Redirect" or "Merge" instead of deletion. Similarly, if another editor has proposed an alternative to deletion but you think the article should be deleted instead, please elaborate why." Why has the nominator not considered a merge / redirect? Alansohn (talk) 20:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay genius, what is the merge/redirect target for this one, I give up. Do not tell me its New Brunswick, New Jersey because it certainly is not a major part of that city. I know you love repeating yourself. WP:BEFORE,WP:BEFORE,WP:BEFORE,WP:BEFORE,WP:BEFORE,WP:BEFORE,WP:BEFORE,WP:BEFORE,WP:BEFORE,WP:BEFORE,WP:BEFORE,WP:BEFORE!!! A few local newspaper articles that amount to little more than a restaurant review does not clear the bar for WP:GNG A **WP:BEFORE** search didn't reveal much else. So unless you or someone else want to add better references to the article or post them here, do NOT claim that I did not do a before search.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Organisation, corporation, or product)
• AfD debates