Talk:Gander Mountain

Contested PROD
I'm not quite sure how we ended up deleting the article for a store which has 152 branches and 5000+ employees. The store passes WP:CORP with flying colors. Please take to AFD if worries persist; I am confident it will be kept. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 05:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it was DELETED, but the company is going out of business. And 126 stores, not 152. 173.22.213.52 (talk) 03:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit war over weight
Please explain your deletion of sourced material. Felsic2 (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Several editors have removed the material. It's not at all clear that this factoid is widely associated (or reported) with the store or that even in a full length article it would be included. Certainly the fact that they broke no law as part of the sale is important. It would be fine for the article about the crime to include this fact but it's way out of balance in this short article. Springee (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * You mentioned "weight". Please explain. How is weight determined? Felsic2 (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You should suggest why you think the material has sufficient weight for inclusion after all we seem to have no consensus for inclusion thus the material should go. In searching for articles and issues about the company this sale basically doesn't come up unless you specifically search for it.  The short article that is the source talks about the a number of aspects of the crime and says that Gander Mnt offered help to the investigation and broke no laws.  So how is this a controversy related to the store?  Remember that we have several recent RfCs that suggests that just because the crime involved Gander Mnt doesn't mean the material about the crime should be in the store's article.  Springee (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I asked how weight is determined, but you didn't answer that, despite the fact that you cited it twice in deleting the material.
 * As for consensus, I don't see any consensus for deletion. Felsic2 (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You can read WP:WEIGHT as well as I can. In any case, minor facts about the company need not be included in the article.  We should balance what's in the article per reliable sources.  When you see how many news stories talk about the company and then the few that talk about the company and the shooting it's clear this isn't a significant thing about the company.  Also, as we have found in RfC's about the Ford F-700 and the Oklahoma City Bombing, the Chevy Caprice and the DC sniper attacks and recently with the S&W MP15 and a mass shooting, weight is not reciprocal.  It might be important to mention where the guns were purchased for the story about the crime but not for a story about the store given the sales were 100% legal.  It would be reasonable for an article about changes to background check laws to cite this incident but again not for a background check controversy article to be put into this store's article.
 * It's not consensus for deletion but addition. The material was added then deleted not many edits later.  You restored it, I've deleted it.  Thus no consensus for it's inclusion.  Alternatively, two recent editors have said remove, you are the only one who said keep.  Springee (talk)


 * Is consensus required to add something? I don't see that in the policy.
 * As for weight, it mostly concerns the volume and prominence of the sources, not the length of the article, as you seem to believe. How many sources are needed for something to be included? I see many facts that are supported by single sources. Felsic2 (talk) 18:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * As for other editors, I only see us two discussing this. Felsic2 (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Consensus is required to add or remove. As for your "only two of us" OK, you added the content here [] and I removed it.  No consensus.  Springee (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * So your policy-based objection is just that there isn't sufficient WP:WEIGHT among sources to include this, but you believe that all other content has sufficient sources? It seems to me that the level of sourcing isn't much different. In any case, if ithat's your objection then it can be remedied by additional sources. Felsic2 (talk) 20:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No, the weight of external sources don't support this as a significant topic related to the company and consensus doesn't support the change. Springee (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * What I'm asking is whether you'd still oppose it if more sources are found. Felsic2 (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I already answered. Just because you can web search for more sources that repeat the fact doesn't give it sufficient weight for inclusion.  We went through something similar here [].  The result of that RfC was a strong affirmation that just because an event is notable (and the shooting in question is) doesn't mean that we have weight needed to include the event in the article page of the incidentally involved store/truck/car etc.  Perhaps you should ask why the crime should be mentioned here if Gander Mnt isn't mentioned in the crime page article (it's not as of this writing).  At least the Oklahoma City bombing article mentioned the make and model of the truck. Springee (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's hard to find any information about a modern company without searching the web. That seems like a crazy position.
 * This article isn't about an automobile. RFCs have gone both ways, so let's not cherry-pick them claiming they are determinative.
 * If your concern is about weight then more sources can address that. If it's something else then say so. Felsic2 (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Now that I start looking, I see a number of articles specifically on where and how Holmes purchased his guns. So there are multiple prominent, reliable source that mention this issue. On the other hand, you've chosen to leave unsourced content about the store's supposed "high-joist ceilings". So I'm not sure how you judge "weight". Felsic2 (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Given the numerous sources which reference this matter, I'm going to restore it. If this doesn't belong in the article, then material with fewer sources doesn't belong either. Felsic2 (talk) 15:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Removed the incidental information. Doesn't appear to have any significance, as it did not cause any business disruption, stock price drop, or any other impact.  Much the same as putting in information on any automobile fender bender accidents occurring in the parking lots of Gander Mountain.  We wouldn't put such incidental information as that in the article, either.  Have removed trivia.  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Many issues that are discussed in this article had no affect on stock price, etc., so there appears to be a double standard. The material you deleted is well-sourced and neutrally presented. You didn't delete any of the unsourced material. So that is more evidence of a double standard. The appearance is that firearms advocates are whitewashing gun-related pages of anything controversial. Felsic2 (talk) 18:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well-sourced does not always equate to relevant, in terms of making additions to articles. Peripherally-tangential data, always presented in a negative light, continuously questions the reason for including such trivial information.  Tarring all gun articles with tangential, at best, negative-leaning information, in a consistently negative light, is not consistent with maintaining a neutral point of view.  Such additions appear to bear an agenda that is markedly anti-gun.  Negative information is fine, if such information has any pertinent weight in terms of impact to a gun company.  But, a "death by a thousand paper cuts", or being continuously harassed by a swarm of nabobs of negativity just simply does not seem appropriate on EVERY gun-related article.  I don't see where such negative information that is not pertinent is being added to other classes of consumer goods.  Why just firearms?  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well said. Interesting to note that this part of the Holmes story is so important that the main article doesn't even mention it. Springee (talk) 00:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * So being sued is irrelevant, but suing is relevant? (Read the article) Can you explain why the difference?
 * Which is the "main article"? I'm still not sure I understand your issues with what you call "reciprocity". Is it important that all articles have reciprocal info? Or is it important that none of them have it? Or where is it appropriate and inappropriate? Felsic2 (talk) 23:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

This one []. No mention of Gander Mountain or Bass Pro Shops. If the fact that the guns were bought legally from GM was so critical why doesn't the main article mention it? Springee (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)