Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of defunct retailers of the United States


 * 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 no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 08:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

List of defunct retailers of the United States

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

List of trivia. As was mentioned on its Talk Page, is a virtual duplicate of Category:Defunct retail companies of the United States and does not merit its own article. Fails to meet WP:NOT. Falard 14:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong delete - A list of every American store chain that no longer exists??? First of all, as the article itself states, that is an "extremely large" number of stores. There's no way to possible maintain a list of such stores. Furthermore, since all of the stores on this list are defunct, almost none of them have articles associated with them, resulting in a list that will primarily be red-linked. There's nothing to say how notable any of these store chains are, either. Bottom line: this is a textbook case of an indiscriminate list. Make it go defunct! --Hnsampat 14:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. It doesn't fit any of the headings in the linked policy. So the use of that policy here is spurious and misleading. RegRCN 15:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Response: It doesn't meet the headings, but it meets the overall concept. A list of every American store chain that has gone bankrupt meets any sane definition of "an indiscriminate collection of information," regardless of if it meets any of the sub-headings.Falard 18:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete better as the (already existing) category. However, should that category ever be deleted for some reason, this should be undeleted/re-created. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom et al. Cat. over list. --Evb-wiki 14:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom et al, better as a category. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 15:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep This is not indiscriminate, and it contains much information that cannot be presented by a category. RegRCN 15:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Question Would you care to describe what criteria of WP:NOT this meets? I can possibly understand a concern that small individual stores will be listed, but I feel that to be a problem solved by limiting it to retailers who would otherwise merit articles.  The fact that most of the entries on this list are red-linked indicates to me that this list is actually helpful in developing Wikipedia.  Many of these pages might never be developed if not for this sort of thing, as well, Wikipedia's selective Bias to the more recent leads to otherwise acceptable material being forgotten.  And there are things that may tell us how notable these stores are, it's called contemporary reports.  Just because it's not on the web today doesn't mean the information isn't out there.  And note, a category would not include the redlinks, which would be a problem.  Seriously, this is a valuable developmment list that should be Kept rather than deleted. FrozenPurpleCube 17:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Response: None of the subheadings, but the general heading. As I posted above, a list of every store that has gone belly up in America is a perfect example of an "indiscriminate collection of information," even if it is not one of the specific examples listed in the policy.Falard 18:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't feel that provides a substantive explanation of your nomination at all. (The general heading is completely useless at WP:NOT) An indiscriminate collection would be something that had no real connection, or was something minor and unimportant.  Retail companies however, are not unimportant or trivial overall, but are instead quite valid subjects for articles.  There may be a need to specifically limit this list to companies that would merit articles, but that's a clean-up issue, not a deletion one.  FrozenPurpleCube 19:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep The phenomenon of retail consolidation and liquidation in North America caused numerous changes in the physical and economic landscape, and the extent of changes create a serious challenge for information management. This list (although imperfect) is very useful for tracking the stories of disappeared stores; a category cannot serve the same purpose. (I also agree with points made by FrozenPurpleCube.)--orlady 17:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Historians and businesspeople look at this list and see cautionary tales, practices to avoid, and experiences from which to learn. Then, there are those people who look at this list and can only see "Places where I can't go shopping".  Mandsford 19:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete If it's just a list with no additional information, a category seems sufficient (and equivalent). --Midnightdreary 23:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * See the list, it does have additional information, especially since there are redlinks here. FrozenPurpleCube 02:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom. The implication that this list serves a sociological purpose in tracking the changing economic development of the US is a bit of a stretch; this is a list of stores, the majority of which are redlinks. If the underlying aspect of this list (and the "cautionary tale") is strong enough then it should stand as a separate article, with the category as evidence. OBM | blah blah blah 10:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Category:Defunct retail companies of the United States serves a much better purpose for this. If people are really interested in knowing about a list of defunct stores and why they are inactive, they can simply click on the category and read the selected articles. Spellcast 10:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes why not have them click through dozens or hundreds or articles instead using a single list. Kappa 04:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Categories and lists can coexist and this one has redlinks that cannot be represented by the category. &mdash;Xezbeth 11:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Categories and lists are not mutually exclusive. This list contains much information that is not in the category. As for its incompleteness, it hardly matters if it contains all the most important items, as it will or at least can do. Indeed across Wikipedia, you have to adopt the approach of valuing what is there, rather than lamenting what is not, as it is all a work in progress. Golfcam 13:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and replace this with a category.  There is no point in listing every business that ever went out of business.   With a category, it could be filtered to the notable ones.  Corpx 15:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Which you can also do with a list, which also has the value of including those notable ones which don't have articles yet. FrozenPurpleCube 15:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree that red links are the ways to get an article created.  They should be requested at the appropriate wikiproject or elsewhere Corpx 15:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if you want to suggest this list to moved to an appropriate Wikiproject, that'd be worthwhile. WP:RETAIL was suggested on the talk page.  FrozenPurpleCube 16:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. There is already a category, and the list in its present form is totally indiscriminate (it does not, for example, state what class of retailers it lists - above how many employees, above what turnover, above what number of branches/franchises). The large number of red link and non-links proves it. If listing defunct retailers by what they used to retail were really necessary, a category would do the job. --Targeman 16:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, far better serviced by a category. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. fits better as a category.  James   Luftan  contribs 16:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete – It is now notable that you are a failed business? Shoessss |  Chat  16:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * These are not necessarily "failed businesses". Many of them were successful businesses that became victims of "engulf and devour" corporate mergers.--orlady 18:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Userfy or make it the to do list of a WikiProject so that all the work that went into generating the list is not lost. (Ooh, Corpx/FrozenPurpleCube already thought that up, neat.) Then Delete, and make categories. I believe that large failed businesses are notable, but they must each have their own article. Speciate 17:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I noticed that it was suggested on the talk page of this article sometime ago, and I was just bringing it up here. FrozenPurpleCube 18:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep I agree with FrozenPurpleCube --PEAR (talk) 19:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as a disgustingly indiscriminate list of trivia. Possibly create category per Corpx VanTucky  (talk) 19:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep a list that contains F W Woolworth satisfies WP:LISTS, and is not indiscriminate as the title clearly identifies qualifying business. See also the essay Categories vs lists. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. So including one notable retailer like Woolworth automatically makes the list worthwhile? And the title clearly indicates the list is indiscriminate. Untold thousands of retailers disappeared in the US since its independence. Or did I miss something? --Targeman 20:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The title of a list need not mean anything in regards to the scope of a list. See for example List of Telecaster players.  FrozenPurpleCube 21:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep per mandsford and Hrothulf. Once notable is always notable. Mathmo Talk 21:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename People are getting hung up on the idea that this is an indiscrimate list. If it was titled "List of notable defunct retailers of the United States", the indiscriminate objection would go away; the population of the list would have to meet notability standards like everything else.  Most of the retailers in the list would have met notability standards in their time, and unless Wikipedia only exists to document notability in this moment, they should still qualify.  The category is valuable, but many of these retailers await a historian interested in writing their articles.   Acroterion  (talk)  21:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep as per Golfcam and Hrothulf. Stefanomione 21:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I think the category will be much better then that - create the article for those red links for those who said it will lose some details.--JForget 00:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Lots of valuable information (as well as potential for more) that categories cannot provide Fg2 10:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.  -- Pax:Vobiscum 21:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep gives encyclopedic information a category couldn't. --W.marsh 14:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, much better organized than a category, allows for redlinks, etc. If it's too big, it can be split, not deleted. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, better organized than a category and partially annotated. The important thing would be to add the year of defunction and whether they were merged, taken over or bankrupted. Kappa 04:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename . per Acroterion. This is a useful list, a bit of trimming of the non-notable retailers would improve it though. IronGargoyle 20:45, 11 August 2007 (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.