Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toolstop

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. MBisanz ^talk 21:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Toolstop (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)

Still no actual substance for convincing independent notability, I still my confirm my PROD. SwisterTwister talk 03:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - created by COI account for promotional purposes. Lacks in-depth coverage in a multitude of reliable secondary sources. Most references are just brief mentions. Citobun (talk) 10:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Wait One of the citations is an independent article about Toolstop. The company does have a long history, and there could be more out there to be found with some solid searches. Metaphorical analysis (talk) 13:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Nicol, Lynda (2013-10-15). "The World's First Toolstop Trade Shop Is Now Open". Daily Record. Archived from the original on 2016-08-21. Retrieved 2016-08-21.

     The article notes:

  2. "Embrace the power of selling online". The Scotsman. 2009-07-27. Archived from the original on 2016-08-21. Retrieved 2016-08-21.

     The article notes:

  3. "Toolstop Plots Continued Online Expansion". Sunday Herald. 2010-01-24. Archived from the original on 2016-08-21. Retrieved 2016-08-21.

     The article notes:

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Toolstop to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 02:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The coverage shown shows shows the lack of significance. Based on their contents, these supposedly reliable newspapers can npot be trusted as RSs for notability , if they give coverage to businessws of this extremely minor nature. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- coverage offered at this AfD is either trivial or local, and insufficient to meet GNG and CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a promo piece overall and only a trivia story at best. Does not meet CORPDEPTH. Kierzek (talk) 14:23, 28 August 2016 (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.