Talk:Kan-O-Tex Service Station

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: article has been split instead -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Kan-O-Tex Service Station → Kan-O-Tex – This article covers a refining company which operated in Kansas from 1909-1953 before disappearing to a series of corporate buyouts; one station from the chain was eventually restored in 2007 as a U.S. Route 66 tourist diner and souvenir shop. One user has been repeatedly moving 1909-1953 info about the refinery to the end (putting the one restored 2007 station first) and removing the refinery's infobox for no better reason than this article having "service station" in the title. "Kan-O-Tex Service Station" should be "Kan-O-Tex" as the page covers both the refinery and the one token station that's been revived as US 66 nostalgia; the page should run chronologically from 1909 forward with "Tow Tater" last. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) - I'm mostly sure that a Wikipedia article is suppose to be written in a style to match the title (I couldn't find the help page). If a person picks a title for the gas station, then wiki article should primarily be about the gas station especially at the top of the article, otherwise if the title for the refinery then other way around.  I'm not picking on you, instead was making the article match the title.  •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  •  18:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * 2) - I would expect the article should match the official company name, such as Kanotex Refining Company or Kanotex Refining, but I'm not sure if Kan-O-Tex unless it was an official corporate name. It is fairly typical that an article has one name, then one or more alternate names are redirected to that article.  See Naming conventions (companies).  •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  •  18:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The advertising and signage all show "Kan-O-Tex" or "Kan-O-Tex gasoline" (and not the more official Kanotex Refining Company), much like a motorist pulling into a Shell Oil station today sees a sign which says "Shell", not the official name of Royal Dutch Shell). As such, that may be the common name and therefore the most obvious valid title. In any case, this page is awkward in that half the text is about the refinery (1909-1953) and the rest is about one attempt at restoring the one Little’s Service Station in Galena - so neither 4 Women on the Route nor Kanotex Refining Company identifies the entire topic. Unfortunately, this page was started as an attempt to write about the station on the blind assumption the refinery already had a page (it didn't as Kan-O-Tex is long gone, so it ended up as half the text in this article). If this weren't already such a short article, I'd be inclined to split the two topics to separate pages instead of deciding which gets more weight on this page - but there's really not enough here for that. An old advertisement for this chain is cited among the references to this page; view it and the logo is "Kan-O-Tex" without the words "refining company" spelled out in the ad or logo. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 04:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Most people don't call it Apple Inc. nor is there a big "Inc" on their products, but that is the article name. Per your example, Royal Dutch Shell is used instead of "Shell"; which mean that "Kanotex Refining" is more than acceptable for an article name instead of "Kan-O-Tex".  Wikipedia articles use the official names, not what appears on the sign on front of the building.  Though I prefer "Kanotex Refining", at this point I really don't want to waste any more time arguing about an old obsolete company, so "Kan-O-Tex" is fine if no one else objects.  •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  •  04:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Splitting the article is definitely the way to go. The two articles can easily link to each other. For the article on the refining company, I support the name Kanotex Refining Company (or possibly Kanotex Refining). If the service station is independently notable (and the NPR article makes it appear so), it could do with some disambiguation because surely it's not the only Kan-O-Tex service station that ever existed, and the article is only supposed to be about this particular station. I'd suggest Kan-O-Tex service station (Galena) or something of that kind; I'm not quite sure which capitalization would be preferable. Huon (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * A split article pair would leave the NPR piece and two Joplin Globe articles (the one on Little’s Service Station mentioned above and the one already cited in the article) as part of Kan-O-Tex Service Station with the rest of the references moving to Kanotex Refining Company. That'd be three and five citations respectively, so the only obstacle to splitting them is that individually the article body of each is short enough to be tagged stub in some form if they're split with no overlap. The disambiguation Kan-O-Tex Service Station (Galena) is likely useless, though, unless any of other individual former Kan-O-Tex stations get an article under a Kan-O-Tex related name (which seems unlikely, as this has been dead since 1953; it's not just that the company which took over Kanotex was taken over, but that its successor was taken over by some company which was then taken over, and this goes through about four levels before possibly turning up as Burlington Northern Inc. or eventually Conoco - at which point the original refinery has been closed and Kan-O-Tex long forgotten). 66.102.83.61 (talk) 17:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Split the article in two. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It is better to split. If it's left as one article, then the tone of the article needs to match the article title (which was my original point).  •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  •  11:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Redirects
A prod tag for an inbound redirect pertaining to this article, 4 Women on the Route (the name of the group restoring the Galena, Kansas station, per the sources NPR and Joplin Globe) was placed by user:sbmeirow, who also unlinked a reference pointing here from the main article on Galena, Kansas. Proposed deletion and citing sources to establish notability applies only to articles, not redirects, so I am reverting this prod. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 00:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe we should have a redirect for every little thing in the USA, just to make everyones ego feel important. I have noticed numerous redirects deleted, so why shouldn't this one?  •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  •


 * Usually the proper approach is to explain why something should be deleted instead of just "Deletion spree! Why not?" and to go through the proper channels (not prod on any of the non-article miscellania specifically excluded from proposed deletion). The sources for the Galena station do use "Four Women on the Route" or "4 Women on the Route", hence their plausibility as redirects. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 12:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The text and the infobox did not match the title of the article, so I had the right to remove it. If I had to ask for permission to make all my edits, then I would never get anything done.  It isn't my fault the article wasn't correct, nor is it my fault your ego is hurt.  •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  •


 * The article is correct, the title (may be) wrong... hence the discussion on a proposed move currently open. Removing valid, sourced content actually makes fixing this more difficult as the discussion is close to consensus to split to Kanotex Refining Company and Kan-O-Tex Service Station (or a variant) - which might be less viable if unexplained deletions of content leave too little text for two articles. This is not constructive. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 05:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Before you whine, you need to go back and look at the edit history. I removed the text PRIOR to all this discusion on the TALK page.  •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  •  06:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I *have* been watching your edit history... very carefully. I see inbound links to this page being unlinked. I see unexplained removal of valid, sourced content. I see repeated attempts to delete inbound redirects which point here. The more I see, the more apparent it becomes that the only result of splitting the text into Kanotex Refining Company and Kan-O-Tex Service Station is that you will remove content from either or both before nominating the split pages for deletion as stubs. Certainly I see no attempts to improve the article, only removal of links to the page and content from the page. Too bad. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 13:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * LOLZ •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  •  18:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Owners' names?

 * The article is not about the refinery. The individuals/owners names are not notable. If this was written for a local newspaper, then names would be important, but otherwise no one outside of the area knows of them.

Really? I presume then that the French language le Petit Futé travel guide books are now somehow the equivalent of the Joplin Globe, as the owners names do appear (albeit with errors) here: Et non, je ne suis pas au Kansas :) 66.102.83.61 (talk) 05:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The aren't notable just because their names are printed a few places. The bottom line is 4 women restored a historical place, which is great, and I'm glad they did it, but in the end they are just owners of a one-of-kind tiny business, thus nothing more than a small business owner, which is not unique.  Numerous people have restored historical places around the world, but that doesn't make any of them notable just for doing it.
 * This is no different than numerous school articles on Wikipedia. Each school has one or more sports stars that everyone praises, and everyone wants to post the sport star names in wiki article, but when compared to the jillions of other schools, most so-called sports stars aren't really special nor unique.
 * If you look at news articles about recent tornados, you will see one persons name repeated over and over, usually the public official for some tiny town. Just because numerous newspapers publish that persons name for one event, doesn't mean that person is notable in Wikipedia.
 * All names that appear to be non-notable run a high risk of being deleted. Even if you put the names back, there is risk that other editors (in the future) may delete those names.  •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  •

The name of the founder of the school or the mayor of the small town would be notable and, if sourced, would not be removed from the articles on the school or the town. So much for argument by analogy as a logical fallacy... there is no proof by analogy as the underlying analogy may make no sense. It's not "other editors (in the future)" who keep removing info from this page, it's you, only. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 12:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Ha Ha, I doubt any high school sport jocks are school founders. Tornado interviews can be anyone, even people who aren't notable. School Founders and Mayors are notable for a different reason, and I never said they should be removed. Ha Ha, on your ignorance of thinking that I'm the only one that would ever remove names. No more replies from me on this subject. • Sbmeirow  •  Talk  •  12:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Four independent sources (Pittsburg Morning Sun, Joplin Globe, Liberty Press, le Petit Futé) all list Melba Rigg, Judy Courtney, Renée Charles and Betty Courtney as founders (and not merely spokespeople or alumni), so notable enough to be listed as part of the history of this individual business even were interstate commerce not so clearly at stake. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 13:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)