Talk:List of supermarket chains in Israel
Merge discussion
[edit]Merge to List of supermarket chains in Asia#Israel was attempted as there are not enough entries on the list to justify a separate article. Ajf773 (talk) 06:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose, there are lists on Wikipedia with a potential of 4–5 entries too. I just don't see any justification for merging, this list has quite a few entries and has the potential for listing smaller supermarkets/chains, adding some info on each chain (like in basically all FLs) etc. If anything, I don't see a point for a list of supermarket chains in all of Asia—there is absolutely no connection between most countries' chains there. —Ynhockey (Talk) 09:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- I wouldn't have a problem with the list if it was expanded to show more context towards each list entry (given there are only 5 notable ones and several non-notable). As it stands, they are just bare mentions. Redirecting at least retains the history and allows other users to rewrite in the future. Ajf773 (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- What makes you think there are just five notable ones? The existence (or lack thereof) of articles on Wikipedia is not an indication of notability. All of the chains on the list are notable, otherwise they wouldn't be on the list. As for actual content, I agree that it would be nice to have a short content piece for each entry. However, not having it is not a reason to remove the list. —Ynhockey (Talk) 10:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- How are they presented to readers in a way that tells them they are notable? SImply listing them doesn't automatically give them that distinction. Ajf773 (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- The assumption is that if it's on the list, it's notable. Granted, I and other editors might have made a mistake and put a non-notable chain (per WP:GNG or WP:V) on the list, but this is a reasonable mistake for any article. In order to give a little more meat to the list and expand on the notability assertion, I have added the number of branches and founding year for many of the chains. I will try to add more information later. I think this addresses your concern about it simply being an empty list. —Ynhockey (Talk) 12:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- OK I see you're trying to improve the article a bit, so I'll leave it in your hands for now. Ajf773 (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- The assumption is that if it's on the list, it's notable. Granted, I and other editors might have made a mistake and put a non-notable chain (per WP:GNG or WP:V) on the list, but this is a reasonable mistake for any article. In order to give a little more meat to the list and expand on the notability assertion, I have added the number of branches and founding year for many of the chains. I will try to add more information later. I think this addresses your concern about it simply being an empty list. —Ynhockey (Talk) 12:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- How are they presented to readers in a way that tells them they are notable? SImply listing them doesn't automatically give them that distinction. Ajf773 (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- What makes you think there are just five notable ones? The existence (or lack thereof) of articles on Wikipedia is not an indication of notability. All of the chains on the list are notable, otherwise they wouldn't be on the list. As for actual content, I agree that it would be nice to have a short content piece for each entry. However, not having it is not a reason to remove the list. —Ynhockey (Talk) 10:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)