Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central Market (Washington)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Central Market (Washington)
Fails Notability (companies and corporations) Jon513 20:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. establish notability or delete HomeTOWNboy 20:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. I believe Central Market (Washington) is a meets the Notability (companies and corporations) criterea since a quick news search showed several articles from major newspapers covering it in detail: ("Store Wars" by Jake Batsell. Seattle Times. Nov 23, 2003. pg. A.1, "Once Exotic Foods Now More Accessible" by John Owen. Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Mar 31, 2004. pg. E.2; these should be available through Lexis-Nexis from your local public library's website). I know my stub article has little detail, I hope like many Wikipedia articles others will expand it. To explain why I created it, I visited a sister-in-law in Texas and we went to Central Market (Texas) and so I did a little research about the two (WHOIS records, etc.). When I saw the Wikipedia page on the Texas one I thought I should create a corresponding page. I have no connection to the company and the article is obviously not advertising. In other words, this is precisely the sort of article people go to Wikipedia to look for. Additionally, if you don't agree that Central Market (Washington) is notable, the Central Market (Texas) article should also be market for deletion (it is also a small chain operating only in one area). --Joshuadfranklin 21:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - small chain operating around one city; fails WP:CORP. BlueValour 03:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal - WP:CORP makes no mention of small chains; many others are notable, such as Powell's Books or Harrods. --Joshuadfranklin 04:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I would add that the article makes no assertion of notability. BlueValour 17:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal - Again, WP:CORP has no requirement for "assertion of notability", or even a description of what constitutes an assertion. --Joshuadfranklin 17:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Since 5 days was up and the only objections were for "notability" (please read this) I've removed the AfD and linked this discussion on the talk page. --Joshuadfranklin
 * Important - The AfD was improperly removed by Joshuadfranklin against Wikipedia policy and hampering this discussion. BlueValour 17:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal - Since it has been over 5 days I simply followed the instructions at Deletion_process which states "If the decision is KEEP (including any variant such as NO CONSENSUS, REDIRECT, or MERGE), remove the AFD Header from the article." --Joshuadfranklin 18:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - The decision, as you well know, is that of the closing admin who may extend the consultative period if they judge appropriate. If you remove it again, it will be deemed vandalism, and it will be referred to RFC. BlueValour 21:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Further, placing messages on Users talk pages such as and  presumably in the hope of gaining support is an unacceptable practice which, again, hinders the AfD process. BlueValour 00:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal - This is the first time I have dealt with the AfD process, I see now that Deletion_process says clearly that it should be done by an admin. Unfortunately I missed that earlier. I am trying my best to follow the policies but I would appreciate a helpful reminder rather than harsh words. As for the talk pages, I was responding to a message left on my talk page about this article: . I was not aware that discussing the AfD process via talk pages was "an unacceptable practice". Additionally, I was not trying to gain support; those users wanted to delete the article, so I wanted to hear their response to my argument. So far I have not heard any explanation of why it does not meet WP:CORP criterea 1. I have already found non-trivial coverage in major newspapers. --Joshuadfranklin 17:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: The Central Market grocery store chain in Washington State is probably less notable than the Central Market that operates in Washington, D.C. -- that market, a landmark that was once one of a series of city-owned marketplaces in D.C., is of some historical interest.(Corrected my original comment -- Central Market is not still active, it is Eastern Market, Washington, D.C. that is still active. But both are of historical interest.  My point is that, if kept, Central Market (Washington) should disambiguate the similar, equally-or-more notable case in D.C. zowie 21:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 *  AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mango juice talk 05:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * delete notability not asserted. Does not seem to be a location, historic or otherwise per Eastern Market, Washington, D.C.. There is ingherently nothing special about a grocery shop which operates in Wahington state and which refuses to participate in mass mailings. CM's own website mentions 3 outlets but no mention of size. I also nominate Town and Country Markets for a similar fate per WP:CORP. Certainly no point is served having both entries. Delete both per WP:CORP. Ohconfucius 06:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Virtually all grocery chains do mass mailings, I would think that refusal was notable. I have no problem merging with the Town and Country Markets article. --Joshuadfranklin 15:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't located the article, cited by Joshuadfranklin above, in The Seattle Times' archive. But there are 3 paragraphs on Central Market in this article. Uncle G 10:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - that is the "Store Wars" article, thanks for finding it online. --Joshuadfranklin 15:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete this Washington outfit but definitely keep the Texas chain...the Texas chain's fifth outlet is 75,000 sq ft, and grocery trades have written several articles about their toe-to-toe battle with Whole Foods. No such buzz on the Washington chain, though that could change in time....right now too small.
 * This page from the construction company says the Mill Creek store is 56,000 sq ft: (it also has a nice picture). Not sure why size of store is an issue, though. --Joshuadfranklin 15:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Town and Country Markets. BlueValour 16:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability not a problem. Small, but mostly harmless article.  Cdcon   17:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - notability /is/ a problem - if you wish it kept please specify how it meets WP:CORP. BlueValour 22:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Joshuadfranklin explained how it did above. JYolkowski // talk 22:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - No he hasn't. He's claimed multi-major paper coverage but not produced any. BlueValour 23:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:CORP only specifies that the references need to exist; it doesn't mean that they need to be produced. Since they're cited in the article, I don't see any problem.  JYolkowski // talk 23:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - this is surreal! We don't know what they say so how can we base anything on them? Even if they do mention this chain, passing reference in local papers doean't meet the case. BlueValour 23:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, verifiable. JYolkowski // talk 22:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I also see that the Mill_Creek, Washington article says "home to Central Market, probably Mill Creek's largest and most popular grocery store, even attracting people from other cities to shop there. At Central Market, small bands play on Saturday afternoons while the store serves barbeque chicken and green beans to the residents." This was added back in July, before this AfD discussion, and not by me: . --Joshuadfranklin 15:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Any number of cities around the world are going to have similar types of stores, and a small group of three in the Seattle area is not in itself notable.  If WP:CORP is to have any meaning at all, size, distinctiveness, notability outside its local trading area, or some sort of encyclopedic justification is surely required, which does not seem to be present here.  With respect, I believe that some of the Keep voters may be confusing "verifiable" with "notable", which in turn is not the same as "mentioned in local papers in the normal course of business".
 * User:Joshuadfranklin's examples are unfortunate choices for his argument. The Powell's Books article informs me that the main store "is the largest independent bookstore in the United States.", and it would appear to have been something of a pioneer in online book retailing.  These are the sorts of things which establish notability, whereas the stores in question do not seem exceptional in any way. The Central Market (Texas) chain has 8 (larger) stores, and is part of a 300-store regional grocery outfit.  The article also tells me the Austin stores combine to be the second largest tourist draw there, which again contributes to notability (unless it is an indication of a dearth of other attractions in Austin).  Harrods is of course an internationally known name with notability to burn.
 * Town and Country Markets should definitely be deleted (redirected if this article should survive AfD), as the corporation and the three smaller stores are even less notable. - David Oberst 07:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.