Deletion of George Street Co-op

Comment: because , kudos to
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard (WP:HEY)

Comment: per {{u|Cunard}} below. '''Delete''' or at the least '''move to draft''' - Does not appear to have significant non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources that would merit an encyclopedia article per . If there is no coverage of a local business beyond its mere existence it does not merit an article. Also the part about articles of incorporation, structure, etc. is patently unfit for an encyclopedia article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP)

Comment: 1) We've heard from participants here who have found sources, yet there is no apparent effort to have complied with . Where is the analysis of potential sources and alternatives to improve the article? Simply asserting that "Your assessment of the sources is false", without any evidence of an appropriate good-faith effort to find sources,  accomplishes nothing. 2) The header for this AfD -- and every other one in Wikipedia -- states that the nominator must '''"... consider alternatives to deletion. If you think the article could be a disambiguation page, redirected or merged to another article, then consider recommending "Disambiguation", "Redirect" or "Merge" instead of deletion. Similarly, if another editor has proposed an alternative to deletion but you think the article should be deleted instead, please elaborate why."''' Why has the nominator not considered a merge / redirect
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)