388:
business that failed, this is a good place to find one. Almost all the links are blue, aiding in navigation by linking to other
Knowledge (XXG) articles, with the few red ones have citations to them strangely enough. Business failures are always mentioned in the news media, and also this is something clearly notable, something an encyclopedia should have, something people can and should learn from. What did they do wrong? Why did they fail?
449:- The criteria for inclusion in this list is sufficient for editors to determine if a company belongs. Is there any serious doubt that Enron was a spectacular example of a business failure? And that it was documented as such in reliable sources? Inclusion of companies that are borderline cases can be discussed on the article's talk page but do not invalidate the premise of the list. --
791:
be added, such as what the business was (I shopped at
Montgomery Ward and flew on TWA, so I know what those were, but we can't assume that everyone does), then I agree with the person above that this would eventually be broken down into other lists. If not, I think the outcome next time around will be a delete.
790:
because it's been flagged for rescue and the subject would be notable enough to rate encyclopedic treatment. If it's not an indiscriminate list, then I'd call it a barely discriminate one-- the only distinguishing info seems to be the year of "failure", which isn't that useful. If details were to
704:
A definition of "business failure" would be an improvement, but not having a precise definition is no reason to delete this list. Any particular company included incorrectly can be challenged or removed, or rescued with reliable secondary sources. So, keep, but discuss a definition on the article
387:
TenPoundHammer, you claim the last one closed because the nominator was a sockpuppet, not because everyone else there, including yourself, said Keep. That is an odd claim. Seems like it'd be a snow keep no matter what. Anyway, there is nothing wrong with the list. If you want to read about a
682:
I just took these football clubs out. They still exist as going concerns and brands and so have no business being in this list. This is how such particular entries should be dealt with. Deleting the entire article for the sake of a handful of incorrect entries would be absurd.
501:- The inclusion criteria for the list is overly vague, and produces a list that can never be practically completed. If someone wants to take the time to define what a notable business failure is, and then cull the list of non-notable business failures, then I would say we should
749:
I think this article is notable, however I do suggest that there should be some sort of criteria to define what is classed as a business failure. However I can't see any strong reasons as to why this article should be deleted, therefore I think we should Keep this article.
653:
If you see something that doesn't belong remove it, and discuss on the talk page. If someone came along and added something incorrectly or as vandalism, that doesn't mean the entire article should be deleted. Normal editing will fix any problems.
769:- Microscopic fragment of an unreasonably vast list, with insufficiently coherent inclusion criteria. The same information is accessible through the articles on the firms in question and via the "(YEAR) Disestablishments" categories.
84:
79:
730:, and others, but in the meantime this is a perfectly acceptable list. Would not have a problem removing the redlinks, but I don't agree with TPH's assertion that the presence of a few redlinks is a reason to delete a list.
178:
529:
collects significant companies who met eventual demise of their well known brand. The causes include criminal proceedings, simple insolvency and are notable for their financial impact in the economy."
74:
310:
The scope of the article seems clear enough. If there are problems with particular entries or if the list grows large then these matters may be dealt with by ordinary editing. It is not our
172:
139:
509:
it until such time that the inclusion criteria can be properly defined. The ARS have already been notified, perhaps they can devote some time to tightening up this list.
235:. There are several more focused lists crying to be freed from this one's carcass, but the current list is a mess. It's got everything from Newton Heath, which turned into
258:
417:
Note: I contacted everyone who participated in the last AFD, who wasn't here already and wasn't banned for being a sock-puppet, since they should be aware of reruns.
239:, to Debbie Reynold's Hollywood Hotel and Casino, which was sold and later shut down under a different name and owner, and Maria's Bakery, hardly a notable disaster.
284:
112:
107:
116:
366:-- no notability criteria for which business failures would be sufficiently notable to merit inclusion; and no criteria have been offered that come from a
99:
209:
Way too vague a criterion. Businesses go out of business all the time. No definition for what constitutes a "failure"; we have everything from the
795:
778:
759:
739:
714:
692:
677:
648:
620:
587:
566:
552:
518:
493:
458:
440:
411:
379:
354:
340:
323:
299:
273:
248:
222:
57:
218:
480:
727:
193:
160:
505:
it. If no one will take the time to do this and the article will sit for a few more years in this state, then I would say we should
17:
723:
345:
Notability is determined by the availability of good sources. This then divides notable failures from the non-notable ones.
331:. How do you determine which businesses are "notable for their financial impact in the economy"? Where's the dividing line?
154:
578:
how does one define a business failure? You can't really define a business failure as such, for that reason I'm neutral.
810:
36:
150:
103:
735:
200:
809:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
688:
350:
319:
95:
63:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
213:
to redlinked businesses of dubious notability. Last AFD closed as keep because nominator was a sockpuppet.
336:
244:
559:
511:
486:
311:
166:
731:
473:
710:
684:
632:
346:
315:
186:
628:
774:
332:
295:
269:
240:
236:
210:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
655:
598:
595:
530:
526:
418:
389:
53:
636:
558:
510:
485:
367:
792:
706:
454:
755:
644:
583:
375:
770:
291:
265:
133:
49:
450:
751:
640:
579:
371:
557:
Define "significant, "demise", and "well known" in this context.
803:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
85:
Articles for deletion/List of business failures (3rd nomination)
80:
Articles for deletion/List of business failures (2nd nomination)
129:
125:
121:
185:
199:
728:List of companies that were placed in receivership
722:Perhaps in the future the list will be split into
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
813:). No further edits should be made to this page.
75:Articles for deletion/List of business failures
469:: The article under discussion here has been
48:. Regrettably, as this is a rather poor list.
259:list of Business-related deletion discussions
8:
314:to use wholesale deletion for such reasons.
724:List of companies that declared bankruptcy
525:The inclusion is defined as "This list of
465:
285:list of Lists-related deletion discussions
279:
253:
283:: This debate has been included in the
257:: This debate has been included in the
479:flagged by an editor for review by the
72:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
70:
24:
1:
796:14:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
779:20:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
760:03:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
740:03:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
715:22:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
693:10:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
678:10:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
649:02:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
621:21:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
588:21:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
567:15:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
553:21:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
519:19:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
494:19:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
459:17:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
441:12:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
412:12:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
380:03:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
355:10:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
341:22:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
324:08:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
300:00:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
274:00:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
249:23:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
223:20:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
58:10:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
830:
368:reliable secondary source
96:List of business failures
64:List of business failures
806:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
481:Article Rescue Squadron
69:AfDs for this article:
633:Crystal Palace F.C.
629:A.F.C. Bournemouth
221:and a clue-bat •
44:The result was
527:business failures
484:
302:
288:
276:
262:
237:Manchester United
211:Dixie Square Mall
821:
808:
674:
671:
668:
665:
662:
659:
617:
614:
611:
608:
605:
602:
596:business failure
564:
563:
549:
546:
543:
540:
537:
534:
516:
515:
491:
490:
478:
472:
437:
434:
431:
428:
425:
422:
408:
405:
402:
399:
396:
393:
289:
263:
216:
215:Ten Pound Hammer
204:
203:
189:
137:
119:
34:
829:
828:
824:
823:
822:
820:
819:
818:
817:
811:deletion review
804:
786:and even then,
732:UnitedStatesian
672:
669:
666:
663:
660:
657:
637:Portsmouth F.C.
615:
612:
609:
606:
603:
600:
561:
547:
544:
541:
538:
535:
532:
513:
488:
476:
470:
435:
432:
429:
426:
423:
420:
406:
403:
400:
397:
394:
391:
214:
146:
110:
94:
91:
89:
67:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
827:
825:
816:
815:
799:
798:
781:
763:
762:
743:
742:
717:
698:
697:
696:
695:
685:Colonel Warden
680:
624:
623:
591:
590:
572:
571:
570:
569:
522:
521:
496:
462:
461:
415:
414:
382:
361:
360:
359:
358:
357:
347:Colonel Warden
316:Colonel Warden
312:editing policy
304:
303:
277:
251:
207:
206:
143:
90:
88:
87:
82:
77:
71:
68:
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
826:
814:
812:
807:
801:
800:
797:
794:
789:
785:
782:
780:
776:
772:
768:
765:
764:
761:
757:
753:
748:
745:
744:
741:
737:
733:
729:
725:
721:
718:
716:
712:
708:
705:talk page. --
703:
700:
699:
694:
690:
686:
681:
679:
676:
675:
652:
651:
650:
646:
642:
639:in the list?
638:
634:
630:
626:
625:
622:
619:
618:
597:
593:
592:
589:
585:
581:
577:
574:
573:
568:
565:
556:
555:
554:
551:
550:
528:
524:
523:
520:
517:
508:
504:
500:
497:
495:
492:
482:
475:
468:
464:
463:
460:
456:
452:
448:
445:
444:
443:
442:
439:
438:
413:
410:
409:
386:
383:
381:
377:
373:
369:
365:
362:
356:
352:
348:
344:
343:
342:
338:
334:
330:
327:
326:
325:
321:
317:
313:
309:
306:
305:
301:
297:
293:
286:
282:
278:
275:
271:
267:
260:
256:
252:
250:
246:
242:
238:
234:
230:
227:
226:
225:
224:
220:
212:
202:
198:
195:
192:
188:
184:
180:
177:
174:
171:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
152:
149:
148:Find sources:
144:
141:
135:
131:
127:
123:
118:
114:
109:
105:
101:
97:
93:
92:
86:
83:
81:
78:
76:
73:
65:
62:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
805:
802:
787:
783:
766:
746:
719:
701:
656:
599:
575:
531:
506:
502:
498:
466:
446:
419:
416:
390:
384:
363:
333:Clarityfiend
328:
307:
280:
254:
241:Clarityfiend
232:
228:
208:
196:
190:
182:
175:
169:
163:
157:
147:
45:
43:
31:
28:
627:So why are
173:free images
219:his otters
793:Mandsford
784:Weak keep
707:DThomsen8
292:• Gene93k
266:• Gene93k
233:split up
140:View log
771:Carrite
576:Neutral
499:Depends
329:Comment
179:WP refs
167:scholar
113:protect
108:history
767:Delete
560:Snotty
512:Snotty
507:Delete
487:Snotty
474:rescue
364:Delete
229:Delete
151:Google
117:delete
50:Stifle
673:Focus
616:Focus
548:Focus
436:Focus
407:Focus
194:JSTOR
155:books
134:views
126:watch
122:links
16:<
788:only
775:talk
756:talk
747:Keep
736:talk
720:Keep
711:talk
702:Keep
689:talk
645:talk
635:and
594:See
584:talk
562:Wong
514:Wong
503:Keep
489:Wong
467:Note
455:talk
451:Whpq
447:Keep
385:Keep
376:talk
351:talk
337:talk
320:talk
308:Keep
296:talk
281:Note
270:talk
255:Note
245:talk
187:FENS
161:news
130:logs
104:talk
100:edit
54:talk
46:keep
752:IJA
641:IJA
580:IJA
372:N2e
290:--
264:--
231:or
201:TWL
138:– (
777:)
758:)
738:)
726:,
713:)
691:)
647:)
631:,
586:)
477:}}
471:{{
457:)
378:)
370:.
353:)
339:)
322:)
298:)
287:.
272:)
261:.
247:)
217:,
181:)
132:|
128:|
124:|
120:|
115:|
111:|
106:|
102:|
56:)
773:(
754:(
734:(
709:(
687:(
670:m
667:a
664:e
661:r
658:D
643:(
613:m
610:a
607:e
604:r
601:D
582:(
545:m
542:a
539:e
536:r
533:D
483:.
453:(
433:m
430:a
427:e
424:r
421:D
404:m
401:a
398:e
395:r
392:D
374:(
349:(
335:(
318:(
294:(
268:(
243:(
205:)
197:·
191:·
183:·
176:·
170:·
164:·
158:·
153:(
145:(
142:)
136:)
98:(
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.