Talk:Joe Muggs

This article was nominated for deletion on 18 April 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was nomination withdrawn.

I removed the dated-prod tab from this article because I believe there is any reason that this article should be deleted. It has references and everything that an article needs to be an article.

I'm sorry, but Fiftytwo thirty told you that "you may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page." You did not explain why in your edit summary or here. Provide a reason, or the prod will be restored. Goodvac (talk) 00:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That reason is insufficient. You did not address the original prod concern: "Do not see any third party reliable sources demonstrating notability of this small chain." Please try again. Goodvac (talk) 01:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Book-A-Million

I have suggested merging this entry to Books-A-Million. That entry also needs sourcing very badly.Griswaldo (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that this article is significantly sourced, I don't believe merging it to an upper level article with little to no sourcing is a good idea. This article has enough reliable sources to stand alone. Silver seren^C 04:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow about the sourcing. The article consists of four sentences. Both of the sources are about "Books-A-Million" with mention of Joe Muggs. There is no significant independent coverage of Joe Muggs on its own. Almost all the coffee shop locations appear to be inside Books-A-Million book stores. On its face this article is not notable, but since it the material is directly related to the book store, which is notable, I felt a merge was much more appropriate than deletion.Griswaldo (talk) 12:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the old AfD that I participated in wasn't listed at the top; I added it. If you look at the external links, you would see that there is a good amount of coverage, more than enough to expand the article longer than four sentences. Also, Google News had nearly 500 hits for the store, with a significant amount of coverage therein. I believe both the main operating store's article, Books-A-Million, and this article have more than enough coverage and should both stay, not be merged. Silver seren^C 16:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the old AfD I stand by my original assessment. The google news hits do not prove notability -- reliable sources that provide independent non-local coverage need to be worked into the entry itself. The article was tagged for rescue during the last AfD but nothing was done to improve it since then (since April). The AfD was also withdrawn before any real discussion took place. It is still my opinion that this should be merged into Books-A-Million. Please improve the entry in a way that makes its independent notability apparent if you do not agree.Griswaldo (talk) 21:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What would be better then, if you feel that way, would be to make another AfD for it, stating that you think it should be merged. That way, a community view on it can be found. Silver seren^C 23:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's leave the merge suggestion up a little longer first. It's no rush. You're probably right that an AfD will be needed to get community input but maybe an RFC would to get input on the merge suggestion before requiring an AfD? I have to say that I'm not fond of AfD as a first resort. What do you think?Griswaldo (talk) 12:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD's are often used as a method of deciding whether something should be merged. They're not just for deletion. Silver seren^C 18:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see. An AfD could be started with that as the rationale from the beginning?Griswaldo (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for merging explains the entire process, but yes. The initial suggestion for an AfD can be merging. Most of the time, merging can just be done by itself, but since I am contesting your merge, then it should be taken to AfD so community consensus on the subject can be found. Silver seren^C 23:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge. The presence of a few stand-alones near the corporate headquarters doesn't give this brand any significant, independent notability, no more so than Borders Express stores have from Borders Group.oknazevad (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]