This article is within the scope of WikiProject Toys, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of toys on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ToysWikipedia:WikiProject ToysTemplate:WikiProject ToysToys articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Buidhe, I see why you originally moved this to draftspace. Part of me is unsure why this needs to be separate from the larger article on Toys R Us. However, since the larger chain has collapsed and the Canadian business is still intact, does that provide an interesting case for corporate notability separately? @Robert McClenon:, what are your thoughts? (Not on the choice by the original editor to bypass AfC, but on the notability question) Bkissin (talk) 17:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Bkissin - My opinion is that this is a case where notability in article space should be decided by a deletion discussion, rather than by draftifying. I am aware that I am in something of a minority in that many editors think that AFD should be avoided at all costs, even by move-warring things into draft space. However, my opinion is that Toys "R" Us Canada should go into article space, and a deletion discussion can be held. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
