Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of business failures (3rd nomination)

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. Wizardman 03:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of business failures

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

Same rationale as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of business failures (2nd nomination) but that was closed as a keep for invalid rationales, as this list is a strongly subjective list without any potential for cleanup as "failures" is a word that fails WP:NPOV and original research, and businesses go out of business all the time Delete Secret ^account 19:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would suppose it gets retitled to something NPOV, like List of shuttered businesses or List of former coporations. Just a thought. --Let Us Update Wikipedia: Dusty Articles 19:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "significant companies who met the eventual demise of their well-known brand"...that's far, far too vague to give any indication of what companies should go here. If there's consensus for a list similar to this, it should be reworked from scratch. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 20:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; this is hopeless. This list depends on the inherently subjective "significant" and "well-known". Also, what does "failure" mean? What happens when X is acquired by Y and re branded (is that a failure of the original brand?); what if the business was closed for non-financial reasons? What about a brand that was ended for business reasons unrelated to direct success (companies end product lines and subsidiaries all the time for numerous reasons). Any definition made generic enough to be objective, OTOH, would then be so inclusive as to include most corporations ever (there are many closed corporations than there are extant ones). — Coren ^(talk) 21:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As mentioned by Secret (talk · contribs), Coren (talk · contribs), "failures" is poorly defined, and the lead's mention of corporate crime implies certain things about the articles that might need to be better sourced. Listcruft. L Faraone 21:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Define "failure" in the context of this list? Pretty difficult. So is maintaining this article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Take the article List of box office bombs. Note that this has the same premise as the nominated article, but it is way more organized, and offers explanations for why the films were not successful. We could transfer the same theory to this article. The problem with this article is that there is way too many examples listed, and no explanations to why they failed. It needs a good rewrite, but I think this article could be very well written. RomeEonBmbo (Talk) 21:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- First thing of all, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, second you can't compare that article to box office bombs because the issue with this is a hopelessly vauge and NPOV problem with the word "failure" and the topic (a list of businesses) a rename won't help in this problem. Secret ^account 23:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pretty much per Howicus. The context of this list is much too vague. T C N7JM 23:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unmanageably overbroad topic with inherent inclusion issues. Carrite (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could we take this example: List of defunct automobile manufacturers and spruce up the AFD'd article to be at or close to par with the list I linked, or should that be AFD'd as well? I know that OSE, but if this AFD'd article had the quality and worksmanship as the example article I linked (and possibly renamed to sound NPOV), would it not have been AFD'd in the first place? --Let Us Update Wikipedia: Dusty Articles 19:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment just deleted List of defunct companies a copy and paste duplication of subject article and a copyright violation, if this article is kept then please consider using move function, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.