Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of clothing and footwear shops in the United Kingdom


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 11:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

List of clothing and footwear shops in the United Kingdom

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is an incomplete list that will never be completed. Full of non notable shops and shops from all the ages. In addition there are multiple sourcing issues. This would be better as a category rather than a list. Games of the world (talk) 07:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 1.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 07:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep We wouldn't expect a list like this to be complete as that would tend to make it a directory. Readers will expect a list of the famous and notable cases such as Marks and Spencer and Clarks.  These are best done as a list rather than a category because citations can support the entries, red links can be used for missing entries, images can be added and so forth.  In any case WP:CLN makes it very clear that we don't delete lists to favour categories. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, magnet for entries about non-notable businesses. Redundant to a (self-maintaining) category. Stifle (talk) 09:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Categories are not self-maintaining. They require editorial effort and, as a result, are routinely inaccurate.  For example, consider Marks & Spencer – one of the largest chains in the UK.  This has Category:Clothing retailers of the United Kingdom but not Category:Food retailers of the United Kingdom.  That's junk because the business makes more money from food sales than clothing.  The chain also sells other items such as shoes but they are not mentioned either.  Categories are also junk because they are never supported by citations and so fail WP:V. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. I have added M&S to the food retailers category - why didn't you do it yourself?  RobinCarmody (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep and trim back all non-notable businesses and advertising links so it doesn't act like a directory. Ajf773 (talk) 10:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * KEEP Eliminate anything that doesn't have its own article to link to or otherwise evidence of its notability. Perfectly valid list, shows links to related articles, and provides more information than a category would.   D r e a m Focus  16:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * KEEP Categories are not use able and referenced and regularly get changed due to people arguing issues over titles. A list will never be completely accurate, but neither are categories or many pages based on retail. We have department store lists around the world, as well as discounters and supermarkets. The older retailers which have very little online references but are part of the history of retail won't be notable for their own page, but need to be referenced to show their part of the development in the history of UK retail. User:davidstewartharvey) 18:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * COMMENTIn addition to my keep statement, there are retailers like Hotter who are a national footwear retailer who advertise on national TV, who currently don't have their own page. Losing the list means they will be lost. User:davidstewartharvey) 18:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep valid WP:LISTN Lightburst (talk) 01:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep There should be no problem if non-notable entries have been removed. Orientls (talk) 03:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. But remove any independent shops that don't have their own articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment an editor has started to remove non notable businesses but has already bodged that up by removing national retailers (like Footasylum who were very much in the press coverage since last year) with national notable refs.User talk:Davidstewartharvey
 * If its so notable than someone should write an article on them. Including entries without an article in this list is a violation of NOTDIR. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Because there is not a page yet it does not meet its not notable, just not written yet.WP:LISTN Secondly Dune which is a national chain and was replaced referenced from national press(the independent) is an example which you deleted. Yes delete local stores but national chains!.User talk:Davidstewartharvey
 * Delete From what I can tell most of the items aren't even about the topic of the list, UK clothing and footwear shops. For instance the article about is Adidas is for the brand and the item for Charlie Allen is about the designer. Neither of which has anything to do with UK clothing or footwear shops. Especially with the listings for global footwear shops like Adidas when they have stores all over the world and there's zero notable about them having in the UK. Their UK stores aren't even mentioned in the Adidas article. Which should be a basic standard for an item to be listed and for it's article to be linked to. The list seems like a case of "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks, because otherwise it will get deleted." I know an AfD isn't clean up, but a good argument could be made that the article isn't notable precisely because most of the blue links have nothing to do with the subject of the list. I'd could also argue that the list should be split up into one for "clothing shops" and one for "footwear shops" and be confined to entries about actually notable brick and mortar locations and legitimate UK companies. Not every single global brand that might have a shop in the UK as a function of the fact that they have shops everywhere on the planet. I think would fix a lot of the problem. Sans that though, the article should be deleted as not actually covering the topic it was created for and for not being notable without citing off topic articles. Wikipedia isn't a directory. Especially of only loosely related subjects. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete A list of shops violates WP:NOTDIR - most of the shops listed have a single branch, are in no way notable, and this lead us into phone book territory. A list of retail chains might be appropriate where each chain has its own article, but this isn't that.Pontificalibus 13:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It is incorrect to say that "a list of shops violates WP:NOTDIR"; such a list can violate it, but not merely by existing to index shops. "Most of the shops listed...are in no way notable" -- this is so inaccurate I have no idea what you're even looking at; every entry under #Current is bluelinked. There are many redlinks under #Defunct, but there are also sources provided for those entries that could support notability. In any event, if the list included nonnotable entries that it should not, that's clearly fixable. postdlf (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You're wrong, as has already been pointed out above the bluelinks are mostly not links to articles about shops in the UK, but to articles on brands etc which don't even mention UK shops. And then there's entries on a single shop like "Charlie Allen - Charlie Allen founded his tailoring shop in 1984." which links to an article about a person which doesn't mention a shop. So yes, the vast majority of entries aren't notable. It's not an index article but an attempt to create a directory of all UK clothing shops.Pontificalibus 20:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You seem to be expecting that the individual shop locations should be notable? In any event this seems like a complaint about inclusion criteria. If the parent company is notable and they operate shops in the UK, then it's certainly reasonable to think it's appropriate to list here. Even for articles such as 7 for All Mankind, which don't mention a UK presence, its entry in this list has a source verifying its inclusion. So whether the article mentions it or not is irrelevant. Further, Category:Clothing retailers of the United Kingdom has 136 entries not even including what is in subcategories. There are clearly enough notable entries to include even if one splits hairs the way you seem to want. postdlf (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't the individual shops be notable if that's what the article is explicitly about? You can't title the article "Shops in the UK" and then claim the notability of said shops don't matter and that it doesn't even matter if the shops are listed in the article that are being blue linked to. Just like you can't create articles for albums, claim they are notable just because the band that put it out is, and then say it doesn't matter if the album isn't even mentioned on the bands page. Those things matter. Otherwise, your just being circularly about it and saying anything in the list automatically notable simply for being in the list. Then that the list and article is notable just because of the items in it. Which is complete nonsense. LISTN says notability is based on the list as a whole and that it should follow GNG. So yes, the items in the list have to have their own notability and it's not based on the company that owns the store. "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable." So is there anything particular notable about the subject of clothing stores in the UK? No there isn't. Every country has clothing stores. There's nothing unique about the UK Gap clothing stores compared to the Gap clothing stores in every other place in the world. Otherwise, there would be a specific Gap store in the UK that has it's own coverage and notability. There isn't though. So there's nothing notable about it just because it's included in a list and nothing else in the list either. "But, but, but it must be notable it's in the list" is a completely meaningless justification for the articles notability. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:51, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * comment the list is no different to supermarkets, department stores, convenience stores, dime/discount store lists on Wikipedia. In fact I afd List of Retail Stores in UK because it was not specific, and we already had specific lists. This was deleted as all editors comments were the same, not specific. Your argument does not also hold water as that means all lists must not be notable! User:Davidstewartharvey
 * Of course, the whole "If this isn't notable nothing else on Wikipedia like it is" argument always tends to come up when there is nothing else to argue. I'll indulge you though, and cite the other "list of retail stores in UK" articles that you claim are exactly like this and cause to keep it. Let's see, there's List of convenience shops in the United Kingdom. Which doesn't list global brands and does list individual locations that have their own articles. So, it's nothing like this one. There's also List of shopping centres in the United Kingdom by size. Which again, doesn't list global brands and only lists individual locations that have their own articles/notability. What about List of discount shops in the United Kingdom? Again, exactly like the other ones and nothing like this article. How about List of supermarket chains in the United Kingdom? Also nothing like this article for the same reasons as the others. List of companies of the United Kingdom A-J? Again, nothing like this article. Etc, etc, etc. I think I've made my point. But sure, lets keep this article because of a bunch of other articles that are nothing like it except for having the words "list" and "UK" in the titles. Rrrriiiggghhhttttt....  --Adamant1 (talk) 15:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment This list is specific to clothing and footwear stores in the UK. This is exactly the same as the other lists. In fact you have argued that there different as there is no multinational brands, but there is. In discount chains you have Poundland and Tiger. In supermarkets, we have Tesco which operate across Europe, while Iceland operate elsewhere other than the UK.
 * Except Tesco is the largest all-purpose retailer in UK and there's a specific section for the UK locations in the Tesco article. Whereas, in this article a brand like American Eagle Outfitters only has three locations and there isn't a UK specific section in its article. In fact the UK isn't even mentioned in the International stores section. So your comparing apples and oranges. I was pretty clear about the differences and what makes them notable and this not. Which included mention of the UK stores in the brands article. Otherwise it's an indiscriminate list that generates it's own notability. Also, the UKs largest retailer and a company with only three locations really have absolutely nothing in common when it comes to notability. Adamant1 (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * BTW, the reason the UK American Eagle Outfitter stores aren't mentioned in American Eagle Outfitters is because according to the article all their UK locations closed down in 2017. Which just confirms what I said above about how this is an indiscriminate list that people are throwing everything at the wall with to make it seem notable. Which just doing cleanup isn't going to remedy. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * keep List is notable. Argument from adamant is weak. As per previous comment "If the parent company is notable and they operate shops in the UK, then it's certainly reasonable to think it's appropriate to list here. Even for articles such as 7 for All Mankind, which don't mention a UK presence, its entry in this list has a source verifying its inclusion. So whether the article mentions it or not is irrelevant.“ that American Eagle does not mention UK is irrevelant. It does not mention any of the countries it operates in other than US. That they closed and he has not removed it is lazy editoring. Remove what is a notable list because it needs work is lazy and poor argument.


 * 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.