84:
74:
53:
183:
158:
238:
22:
581:
This. We can absolutely have a debate on the merits, but that debate begins when you say "This article should be deleted because it doesn't meet these policies, or because it isn't notable, or because of this other reason", or whatever. Then other editors reply, either agreeing, disagreeing, raising
600:
Hi all. I'm new to wikipedia editing but am a librarian and knowledgeable generally about sources etc. I am not affliated with this bookshop. I've added two citations to this entry (hopefully correctly) and a sentence and a phrase, would think we can call it a day - could someone review and remove
487:
Bullcrap. It had four references to the same chapter of the same book, all of which were quotes from the shop owner. All refs here are based on interviews with the shop's owner, and totally self-referencing. This page has easily and correctly been reduced to remove "bumpf" - and that only requires
470:
says that notability can be established by "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", one should not delete such sources and then assert that the topic isn't notable. This is a very short article but the topic does appear to have multiple reliable sources.
513:
You might have an argument in favor of deletion, but I couldn't put one together from your comment here - and had to remove the AFD tag. If you like, post your reasoning for wanting the article deleted here and I can complete the steps, or make a request at
518:
and another editor will complete the nomination. In the meantime, the article's one sentence doesn't explain why the subject is notable, so I tagged it for notability. It exists, and that's good, but there needs to be more there there.
582:
their own points, and so on. That debate lasts as week. Then an administrator reviews the discussion and sees where consensus lies. So please state your rationale for deleting the article - and we'll set up the debate.
264:; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
310:
Much of this article is completely self-referential. Almost all the references are either to the shop's own site, or from printed material that all used the shop's owner as a source. Biased.
567:. Also, your removal of information regarding a source was not constructive. There may be valid arguments to delete this article, but this is unclear from your comments so far. --
331:
This article is not about anything of general interest--it's an advert, or SEO feature...it serves no real purpose. There is no history, about, points of interest...etc. DELETE.
629:
130:
624:
140:
544:
495:
284:
244:
451:
430:
388:
367:
338:
317:
83:
588:
525:
409:
106:
297:
189:
163:
97:
58:
33:
293:
548:
499:
455:
434:
392:
371:
342:
321:
21:
413:
283:
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant
39:
360:
This is a section to arrange and continue all existing and any new calls for this page to be deleted.
540:
491:
447:
426:
405:
384:
363:
334:
313:
194:
168:
572:
537:
You don't get to remove the AFD tag. It requires a proper discussion first as per the guidelines.
476:
463:
Before making the previous comment, the editor first deleted one of the article's reliable sources
105:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
606:
515:
583:
560:
520:
248:
402:
4 sentences does not an article make. Agree with previous talk comments, mark for deletion.
568:
472:
269:
618:
602:
601:
the "notability" tag at the top? Please let me know what else I can do to help here.
564:
563:
explained above, you didn't complete the steps required to create a discussion under
467:
276:
89:
73:
52:
610:
592:
576:
552:
529:
503:
480:
438:
417:
396:
375:
346:
325:
301:
182:
157:
237:
79:
272:
then you may need to upload it to
Knowledge (Commons does not allow fair use)
352:
This article consists of four sentences. It's needs expanding, or deleting.
290:
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image
102:
423:
Article references company's own website==bias. Mark for deletion.
381:
5/6 refs on this site are to interviews with the shop owner. Bias.
15:
229:
File:Treadwells
Bookshop London 1.jpg Nominated for Deletion
464:
101:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
275:If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no
285:image page (File:Treadwells Bookshop London 1.jpg)
192:, a project which is currently considered to be
8:
538:
489:
152:
47:
19:
253:Media without a source as of 9 May 2012
154:
49:
630:Low-importance London-related articles
247:, has been nominated for deletion at
245:File:Treadwells Bookshop London 1.jpg
7:
444:Barely a stub. Flesh out or delete.
188:This article is within the scope of
95:This article is within the scope of
279:then it cannot be uploaded or used.
38:It is of interest to the following
625:Stub-Class London-related articles
14:
236:
181:
156:
82:
72:
51:
20:
243:An image used in this article,
204:Knowledge:WikiProject Retailing
135:This article has been rated as
207:Template:WikiProject Retailing
1:
376:16:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
109:and see a list of open tasks.
468:general notability guideline
439:12:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
347:12:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
326:19:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
115:Knowledge:WikiProject London
251:in the following category:
118:Template:WikiProject London
646:
418:10:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
397:18:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
141:project's importance scale
611:13:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
593:16:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
577:15:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
553:14:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
530:14:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
504:10:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
176:
134:
67:
46:
481:15:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
302:13:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
121:London-related articles
294:CommonsNotificationBot
28:This article is rated
466:. Since Knowledge's
190:WikiProject Retailing
458:) 08:41, 13 May 2014
277:fair use rationale
210:Retailing articles
98:WikiProject London
34:content assessment
591:
555:
543:comment added by
528:
516:The AFD talk page
506:
494:comment added by
450:comment added by
429:comment added by
408:comment added by
387:comment added by
366:comment added by
337:comment added by
316:comment added by
308:
307:
257:What should I do?
249:Wikimedia Commons
226:
225:
222:
221:
218:
217:
151:
150:
147:
146:
637:
587:
524:
459:
441:
420:
399:
378:
349:
328:
268:If the image is
240:
233:
232:
212:
211:
208:
205:
202:
185:
178:
177:
172:
160:
153:
123:
122:
119:
116:
113:
92:
87:
86:
76:
69:
68:
63:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
645:
644:
640:
639:
638:
636:
635:
634:
615:
614:
545:212.159.162.173
496:212.159.162.173
488:one sentence.
445:
424:
403:
382:
361:
358:
332:
311:
231:
209:
206:
203:
200:
199:
166:
120:
117:
114:
111:
110:
88:
81:
61:
32:on Knowledge's
29:
12:
11:
5:
643:
641:
633:
632:
627:
617:
616:
598:
597:
596:
595:
535:
534:
533:
532:
508:
507:
484:
483:
452:81.129.147.147
431:81.132.237.125
389:213.120.53.147
357:
354:
306:
305:
281:
280:
273:
259:
258:
241:
230:
227:
224:
223:
220:
219:
216:
215:
213:
186:
174:
173:
161:
149:
148:
145:
144:
137:Low-importance
133:
127:
126:
124:
107:the discussion
94:
93:
77:
65:
64:
62:Low‑importance
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
642:
631:
628:
626:
623:
622:
620:
613:
612:
608:
604:
594:
590:
585:
580:
579:
578:
574:
570:
566:
562:
558:
557:
556:
554:
550:
546:
542:
531:
527:
522:
517:
512:
511:
510:
509:
505:
501:
497:
493:
486:
485:
482:
478:
474:
469:
465:
462:
461:
460:
457:
453:
449:
442:
440:
436:
432:
428:
421:
419:
415:
411:
407:
400:
398:
394:
390:
386:
379:
377:
373:
369:
368:213.120.24.50
365:
355:
353:
350:
348:
344:
340:
339:81.135.15.233
336:
329:
327:
323:
319:
318:92.40.254.213
315:
304:
303:
299:
295:
291:
287:
286:
278:
274:
271:
267:
266:
265:
263:
256:
255:
254:
250:
246:
242:
239:
235:
234:
228:
214:
197:
196:
191:
187:
184:
180:
179:
175:
170:
165:
162:
159:
155:
142:
138:
132:
129:
128:
125:
108:
104:
100:
99:
91:
90:London portal
85:
80:
78:
75:
71:
70:
66:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
599:
584:UltraExactZZ
561:Ultraexactzz
539:— Preceding
536:
521:UltraExactZZ
490:— Preceding
446:— Preceding
443:
425:— Preceding
422:
410:81.153.7.164
404:— Preceding
401:
383:— Preceding
380:
362:— Preceding
359:
351:
333:— Preceding
330:
312:— Preceding
309:
289:
288:
282:
261:
260:
252:
193:
136:
96:
40:WikiProjects
262:Don't panic
619:Categories
30:Stub-class
569:Arxiloxos
473:Arxiloxos
201:Retailing
164:Retailing
603:Llatulip
541:unsigned
492:unsigned
448:unsigned
427:unsigned
406:unsigned
385:unsigned
364:unsigned
356:Deletion
335:unsigned
314:unsigned
270:non-free
195:inactive
169:inactive
139:on the
565:WP:AfD
112:London
103:London
59:London
36:scale.
607:talk
573:talk
549:talk
500:talk
477:talk
456:talk
435:talk
414:talk
393:talk
372:talk
343:talk
322:talk
298:talk
589:Did
559:As
526:Did
131:Low
621::
609:)
575:)
551:)
502:)
479:)
471:--
437:)
416:)
395:)
374:)
345:)
324:)
300:)
292:--
605:(
586:~
571:(
547:(
523:~
498:(
475:(
454:(
433:(
412:(
391:(
370:(
341:(
320:(
296:(
198:.
171:)
167:(
143:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
