Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of defunct retailers of the United States (2nd nomination)


 * 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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

List of defunct retailers of the United States
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)
 * Good resourceMany of these retailers are part of the history of the United States and provide a cultural atlas of how people shop and also provide a source of what you should not do if you want to be a successful retailer.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elyer (talk • contribs) 20:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Indiscriminate list. Half of these are unlinked or red linked. Any chain could potentially be included on this list, as with any other local chain. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   --  Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Presumably, this is a list of notable defunct retailers, which seems like a discriminate list. The number of redlinks is not a negative; actually that's one of the good things about a list, it lets us know what we need articles on. I'd lean towards weak keep... the list does need to be more coherently focused on including notable large retailers (either through multiple locations or one large location). My corner drug store, while it's sad that it closed, should not be eligible for this list... currently the title/intro paragraph suggest it would be. --Rividian (talk) 01:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but cleanup rigorously. Normally I'm all for redlinks, but I think they are of far lesser use on lists than in articles (redlinks in articles at least demonstrate a contextual usefulness).  I say keep the entries on the list that already have Wikipedia articles and ditch the rest as unhelpful clutter.  Ford MF (talk) 02:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep -- but it needs some attention --Mhking (talk) 04:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Good luck with that, the Retail WikiProject seems dead. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 12:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep It provides some useful information about long-dead retailers and, as such, has reference value. I myself have referred to it for historical research into corporate mergers and antecedents from time to time. Agree with Rividian in re notability cleanup.   JGHowes  talk  13:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but trim all the redlinks and anything only "pretty much" defunct. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as long as it is limited to "notable" retailers, whether redlinked or not. (edited to add:) They should be totally defunct: out of business, bankrupt, or bought by another company (Like Marshall Fields). Edison (talk) 18:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep A meaningful list with descriptions and grouped by type. I would suggest including more details about all of the listed firms (dates of operation, geographic area, cause of demise, etc.) with reliable sources and eliminate those that are just blank entries. Alansohn (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, one of a small minority of lists here not to violate WP:LC. Stifle (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * keep excellent example of a quality, useful list.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I find this discussion very interesting. Would List of defunct retailers of Indonesia or List of defunct retailers of Brazil or List of defunct retailers of Nigeria have attracted the same support? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:35, 9 October 2008 (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.