Talk:Treadwell's Bookshop

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Retailing

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Retailing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of retailing 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.RetailingWikipedia:WikiProject RetailingTemplate:WikiProject RetailingRetailing articles

Retailing To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : SM Lanang Premier
Copyedit : Retailing in India
Expand : :- Please expand this project's list of articles. The subcategories of Category:Retailers is also an excellent starting point.
- Expand this project's image gallery page

- More articles for expansion: Automated retail, Big-box store, Chain store, Hypermarket, Store manager
NPOV : Retail loss prevention
Photo : Retail design
Stubs : Leakage (retail), Retail geography
Verify : Department store, Discount store, Retail clerk, Retail in the Republic of Ireland, Retail media, Retail software, Suggested retail price
Other : * Please add this project's banner {{WikiProject Retailing}} to retail-related talk pages. Also, bots can be utilized to automate this task.
- Also, add biographies to the articles list.

–When a task is completed, please remove it from the list.

File:Treadwells Bookshop London 1.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Treadwells Bookshop London 1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 9 May 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; 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.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Treadwells Bookshop London 1.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.254.213 (talk) 19:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.15.233 (talk) 12:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article consists of four sentences. It's needs expanding, or deleting.

Deletion

This is a section to arrange and continue all existing and any new calls for this page to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.24.50 (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

5/6 refs on this site are to interviews with the shop owner. Bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.53.147 (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

4 sentences does not an article make. Agree with previous talk comments, mark for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.7.164 (talk) 10:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article references company's own website==bias. Mark for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.237.125 (talk) 12:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barely a stub. Flesh out or delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.147.147 (talk) 08:41, 13 May 2014

Before making the previous comment, the editor first deleted one of the article's reliable sources[1]. Since Wikipedia's general notability guideline 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. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 one sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.162.173 (talk) 10:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 The AFD talk page 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. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get to remove the AFD tag. It requires a proper discussion first as per the guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.162.173 (talk) 14:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As Ultraexactzz explained above, you didn't complete the steps required to create a discussion under WP:AfD. 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. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 the "notability" tag at the top? Please let me know what else I can do to help here. Llatulip (talk) 13:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]