Talk:Wellchester/Archives/2014

logo

Can someone upload the Wellworths logo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.64.168 (talk) 18:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 19:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Thank you

Trademark Issue?

Is this bit necessary? There have been a number of comments such as are referenced, but there have also been other articles that say that because there have been numerous shops called Wellworths in the UK going back many years (and still are some) the failure of Woolworths Plc to act has lost any right to start acting now. Also, with similar names, there would have to be confusion, and I think that everyone knows that Wellworths is not Woolworths. Unless and until the new owners of the Woolworths name express any disapproval, these articles are merely comment and opinion. 82.29.215.181 (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. The articles are opinion, mere speculation on 2 law firms' promotional websites. Not reliable sources even if it were fact. "Concerns have been raised", it doesn't state by whom, I suppose we could change that but I don't think those opinions are significant enough to warrant a mention. Removing. Rubiscous (talk) 04:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

"Unless and until the new owners of the Woolworths name express any disapproval, these articles are merely comment and opinion." Does this comment help any? - "Meanwhile, Woolworths in the United Kingdom are planning to relaunch a son-of-Woollies store called Alworths, according to The Independent -- and its owners are threatening Shop Direct are threatening to sue Claire Robertson, who runs the successful Dorchester Woollies tribute store Wellworths, according to a press release from Emma Singleton on behalf of UK trade mark and patent practice Mathys and Squire LLP." http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2009/10/looking-for-new-suit-try-woolworths.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.70.217.172 (talk) 06:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The above paragraph quotes from a blog. Apart from the fact that blog entries are not acceptable references, the passage quoted has been removed from that blog. There was also a correction on that site explaining that the information there was incorrect, but the correction was removed at the same time as was the offending paragraph. Also, the Independent article that the blog linked to does not make any reference to Emma Singleton or Mathys & Squire making any threats at all.82.26.59.198 (talk) 19:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Noteworthy?

Is it just me or is this not really noteworthy? A note in the Woolworths article may be warrented but this is ultimately just an indpenedent retailer, much like the thousands of others that don't have a mention on WP. Anyone object to me tagging it for merge/deletion? RaseaC (talk) 01:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that you raise a valid point. It probably should be merged into the Woolworths article. On the other hand, this retailer did get A LOT of media coverage throughout Europe. The massive media interest might be enough to warrant it its own article. Zestos (talk) 01:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from. However, as previously mentioned WP:ONEEVENT may be relevant here. Ultimately something like this will get a lot of media attention, in a lot of cases international media attention, and this is inherent with the world in which we live and the availability of information about such stories. Although the story was widely reported I still don't think it is noteworthy enough for it's own article. In my opinion the media attention just about warrents a section in the main Woolworths article but nothing more. When voted on in the past this motion received no consenses so I'd be itnerested to see what others think before tagging it.

I really don't know what's best to do. I wish I could be more help. Although it would be ashame to lose the article, I think that we should probably do whatever is standard on Wikipedia with artcles like this. I'm a casual editor, so I'm not too sure what that is, but I'm sure that someone else will know. Zestos (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

There was no consensus to delete in the AFD discussion, and Wellworths has since been the subject of a BBC documentary, so I don't think it would be constructive to re-nominate it for deletion. I would suggest leaving it a few months and if nothing new comes along with which to expand the article, start a discussion on merging it into the Woolworths article.--Michig (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Michig, I appreciate your comments but I think if we do that we're just putting off the inevitable. Ultimately it's very unlikely the store will garner any more press and as a result there I would suggest either re-nominating or just goin ahead and merging. The fact there was a BBC documentary doesn't really say much other than the BBC felt like jumping on current news in a bid for ratings. RaseaC (talk) 20:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The BBC documentary means that Wellworths received even more significant coverage over 3 weeks after it opened. I agree that there's nothing intrinsically notable about Wellworths but the fact that it has received so much coverage in reliable sources means that it is notable by Wikipedia standards, and a re-nomination for deletion would be very unlikely to result in deletion.--Michig (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

KEEP THIS ARTICLE! It came in VERY helpful for me when I needed to find out about Wellworths. Is that not the point of Wikipedia? (86.1.97.190 (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 16:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC).

Biased & Uncited?

I have noticed that some parts of this article are biased or unreferenced. For example, the sentence "This is probably a good move as the only competition is WH Smith in the area, and they are more expensive." is biased.

Who says its a good move? How do you know that WHS is the only competition? In what area? How can you be sure that they are more expensive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddlshack (talk • contribs) 18:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Ive removed it. The said part was added by an unregistered member, if someone is wanting to add it again provide some proof that that is the case and it can stay. --Rexy (talk) 19:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I’ve added tags regarding the style and neutrality of this article. It reads far too much like an essay, frequently referring back to the manager’s opinions on the store. Additionally, the tone is heavily promotional, and as such I’ve added the tag disputing the neutrality (however, it could be justified that the two tags are heavily linked). On the plus side, a lot of the information is now cited.157.203.42.175 (talk) 10:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)