Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Gloria (shoe retailer)


 * 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. Per WP:NOTAVOTE the weight of WP:PAG based arguments clearly favor deletion. Most of the Keep arguments seem to either ignore or misunderstand our notability guidelines. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

La Gloria (shoe retailer)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NCORP. Could not find significant coverage in reliable sources. CNMall41 (talk) 00:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:05, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:05, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:06, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. This article from El Nuevo Día is significant coverage, and El Nuevo Día,a leading newspaper in Puerto Rico, is a reliable source. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * One source does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. If that were the case, any company would pretty much qualify for its own Wikipedia page.--CNMall41 (talk) 07:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong keep, a legendary company in Puerto Rico. Antonio Fingerman Martin (dilo aqui!) 04:48, 15 January, 2019 (UTC)
 * Why "strong" based on a single source pointed out above? "Legendary" is not part of the criteria for WP:NCORP which is what would be required to keep the page. Since Wikipedia is based on sources and not reputation of a company, can you point out the references that would meet WP:CORPDEPTH?--CNMall41 (talk) 07:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Despite no web coverage, the article passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Sheldybett (talk) 07:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "Despite no web coverage, the article passes WP:CORPDEPTH." Did I read that correctly? That is exactly why it would NOT pass CORPDEPTH.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Dratify Guess, the page requires more work to look encyclopedicMgbo120 (talk) 11:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong keep because they have stores in 37 of the 78 municipalities of P.R. http://www.lagloriapr.net/lagloria/Tiendas.html --the eloquent peasant (talk) 13:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you show me the WP:NCORP guideline that talks about companies being notable based on the number of stores they have? --CNMall41 (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This source, a Puerto Rican newspaper discusses the significance of these stores in Puerto Rico. --[[User:Level C|the eloquent peasant] (talk) 01:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * A document by the Federal Communications Commissions calls it "one of the principal shoe stores in Caguas, Puerto Rico" here, on page 387:

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: As 3 of the Keep votes have not been justified in anything close to suitable policy

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment, , , "notable" does not mean the same thing on Wikipedia that it does in the physical world. Please see Notability for general notability guidelines, Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines to this specific AfD, and Reliable Sources for what sources can be used. My apologies if you already know this. Aurornisxui (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Article does not meet WP:ORGCRIT, WP:CORPDEPTH for the following reasons:
 * Of the sources listed, only the El Nueva Dia is RS. The first is an ad for the shoe store at a mall published by the owning company of the mall. The second is a directory listing with address, phone, etc. While there is the founding date of the company, this does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. The third is another ad. The fourth is a webpage from La Gloria's competitors and the site is under construction. The fifth is the El Nueva Dia article.
 * I went searching for more information. I tried Newspapers.com to see if Florida papers might have something. No results. I searched for Puerto Rican newspapers and found this listing. I tried several papers, especially those that deal with business, but no results there either. I did a search for "La Gloria zapateria" and "La Gloria calzado" and "Tiendas La Gloria", no results. Aurornisxui (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Strong Keep here is another resource: (My apologies. You did say to add new comments below. I found this: :::A document by the Federal Communications Commissions calls it "one of the principal shoe stores in Caguas, Puerto Rico" here, on page 387: The book talks about it being around in the decade of the 70's. The Federal Communications Commission Report  mentions the stores being around sooner than that. (The report was published in 1951- the store was a principal store in 1951). --the eloquent peasant (talk) 02:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * A professor at the Business School of the University of Mayaguez in Puerto Rico wrote a book Negocios que han hecho historia en Puerto Rico about businesses of Puerto Rico, in which she features La Gloria. She stated she had to write the book so that universities of Puerto Rico could use business case studies of Puerto Rican, in their curriculum. She noted that up to that point that case studies used in business schools across the island were of American businesses, in books written in English. the eloquent peasant (talk) 02:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment
 * I've tried 2 different computers, but all I can see of the FCC report is, as you said, it is "one of the principal shoe stores in Caguas, Puerto Rico". However, the article on the report is about the manager of La Gloria and not about the company itself. This still fails WP:ORGCRIT see the section Primary criteria. Like the NYT example, the FCC report is reliable, independent, and secondary, but the coverage about the store La Gloria is not significant.
 * The second source you cite merely mentions La Gloria, as well as 9 other retailers. The section is about commercial transformation, how older and newer buildings will make up the new commercial areas on Puerto Rico. It uses La Gloria merely as an example of the kind of store that will be in this new commercial area. For significant, independent, reliable, and secondary sources, you will need to find more articles like El Nueva Dia that talk in depth about La Gloria.
 * Lastly, the book you mention still does not talk about the store La Gloria. it mentions the modern slogan of the store and that the vice president of the company spoke about how important the book was. The companies profiled in the book, according to the article you cited, are E. Franco and Company, El Meson Sandwiches, Compofresco Processing as well as Ricomini and Vasallo, plus two international companies. Again, sources must have significant coverage -- meaning in depth coverage about the company La Gloria, and not just be mentions of it to qualify.Aurornisxui (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "It is the quality of the content that governs." and it looks like the article in El Nuevo Día is a good quality article on the shoe store.--the eloquent peasant (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It is, but you need more than one quality source to be notable. Aurornisxui (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I was reading this again and it says "A single significant independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." I think this means that multiple sources are not always required. I still believe the article in the newspaper is sufficient. Also I understand the FCC report was mainly about the guy, but it did mention the company as a Principle company in Puerto Rico.--the eloquent peasant (talk) 04:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:ORGCRIT "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." (my bold, italics on this part). Also, significant on Wikipedia does not equal lots and lots. Aurornisxui (talk) 14:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Clearly, many of the Keep !voters are not familiar with the guidelines on notability of companies and other organizations in WP:NCORP. We require intellectually independent references that discuss the company in-depth. References that contain a one-liner or a mention-in-passing fail the criteria for establishing notability as do references that are based on company announcements or rely extensively on interviews/quotations with connected sources. None of the references mentioned meet the criteria in WP:NCORP and the topic fails GNG.  HighKing++ 19:46, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete (unless someone has a good redirect target), per 's good analysis of the present sources. My own sweep didn't turn up anything else helpful to discussion. I don't believe the one source is so stupendous as to warrant running off one source, nor is there a particularly good argument for IAR, here. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete clearly fails WP:NORG it appears that Keep voters above are not aware that Wikipedia's notability bar for companies are much higher then what they are expecting it to be. WP:ORGCRIT clearly explains that multiple independent sources with "significant" coverage is needed. Passing mentions should not count. 's good analysis is correct in debunking them. (Also Jovanmilic97 should be thanked for relisting this discussion this is a clear delete)-- D Big X ray ᗙ  05:35, 30 January 2019 (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.