Talk:BI-LO

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Disambiguation  
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
 

BI-LO was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made below the archived discussion rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP

Not notable. I believe a company needs to have either a) a multi-national presence, or b) be publicly traded, to have a Wikipedia article. This supermarket chain meets neither criteria. Despite the article's claim, it is NOT a world-wide chain--its stores are limited to 4 US states[1]. Niteowlneils 20:29, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • I don't agree with your "multi-national" limitation, but this company is a US presence of a publicly traded Dutch group [2]. I don't see any way to enlarge it without becoming an advert, so Redirect to Royal Ahold. Keep for cleanup. Gazpacho 07:42, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Correct it and add information on the parent company, google says they also have stores in Australia and they get well over 1m results. Notable enough, Keep. Joe D (t) 23:40, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep due to precedent. We have already allowed in supermarket chains with less presence. Indeed, one of my early VfD nominations was an Australian store where the article just said, "Many have tile floors." Since we have done those, we must do this, though I'd like to see a high bar set for commercial enterprises. Geogre 01:36, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Hmmm, there are certainly stores in Australia called BI-LO. But this article seems to be a substub, and deletable. If we have mistakenly kept an article, surely we don't then need to repeat the same mistake because of the precedent? No vote as yet. Andrewa 02:17, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, send to cleanup with a add content notice. [[User:Rhymeless|Rhymeless | (Methyl Remiss)]] 05:11, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • What's there to say? I grew up in a region where there are Bi-Lo stores, and I can't think of anything to say about them that wouldn't be promotional. They're just another supermarket. Gazpacho
      • What about when the chain was founded, location of its first store, who the founder was, where the stores are, number of stores, competitors.....those all spring to mind. [[User:Rhymeless|Rhymeless | (Methyl Remiss)]] 05:22, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Dude, it's a worldwide chain. Number of US stores is not a valid criterion. TWIAVBP. Keep - David Gerard 12:53, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • As has been said, this *IS* a multinational chain, hence the signifiance. Granted, a lot more information is required - the info Rhymeless suggested would be a great start. No reason to kill this yet IMHO. Keep. - Vaelor 15:19, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. They're all around my area, so they must be at least somewhat notable. Everyking 19:06, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Global business. Obvious notability. --Gene_poole 03:40, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - It is one of Australia's largest retail giant corporation's (Coles Myer) largest businesses. Revenge 07:43, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

End archived discussion -- Graham ☺ | Talk 15:02, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Since the 3 Bi-Lo chains (Southern US, Pennsylvania, and Australia) are totally independent of each other, sharing only the name "Bi-Lo", the chains should be DISAMBIGUATED.