Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of independent bookstores


 * 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) czar   &middot;   &middot;  04:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

List of independent bookstores

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Incomplete, never to be complete, unmaintainable list that is not even broad enough to be a directory, which Wikipedia is not. Fiddle  Faddle  22:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per WP:NOTDUP, "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." See also: Category:Independent bookstores. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * nothing to do with the old category vs list argument. Look at the list! It is impossible to maintain. Fiddle   Faddle  23:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per my comments at related AFD. postdlf (talk) 20:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  D u s t i *poke* 03:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I have considerable concerns over lists such as this, because Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion (notability) are only indirectly related to their merit as places to go for books today, especially as notability relies on historic evidence. They may be mere shadows of what they were, under different and incompetent ownership. The average user cannot be expected to understand the subtleties of this, and that the listing is in no sense a recommendation by the Wikipedia community. Other, and better, bookshops may be available. At the very least, the lead should make this clear. Wikipedia is not a directory. --AJHingston (talk) 09:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Entries for the UK include Foyles and Stanfords which are major institutions and seems quite appropriate for browsing and navigation. My concern would be the word independent which seems an unhelpful distinction and open to argument.  We shouldn't keep the chains while deleting major stores that don't have that business model.  Warden (talk) 13:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Given that these are identified as "independent bookstores" within the individual articles' text and via the category structure Category:Independent bookstores, an AFD regarding only this list really isn't the proper place to be questioning that whole classification. postdlf (talk) 17:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As the list forms part of a set of connected classifications and categories, it is not sensible to consider it in isolation. The structure is therefore relevant to the AFD. Warden (talk) 17:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - If wikipedia has enough of them with Articles to warrant a mention on the Table, then there should be a List to assist people that Browse by that method. Also, This List cannot be considered in isolation from its counterpart List of bookstore chains either. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 21:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. the subject is definable (a bookstore is either independent or a chain: some indie stores have multiple locations, but with each store allowed to make purchasing decisions. chains centralize buying decisions, with the store managers having little or no say in purchasing), the inclusion in the list is based either on the store having an article, or refs which show notability (and thus could have an article or article section if someone tried). all lists get unsourced names added, thus all lists are "unmanageable" to a degree, if no one is watching them, just like articles are "unmanageable" if left alone too long. as long as we allow former stores back in (we are NOT a directory for potential customers), the list is fine. problems with maintaining it are a separate concern from AFD, which is for determining if the subject is both notable and, if a list, definable.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep All the things listed have blue links to their own articles. Perfectly valid Wikipedia list article.   D r e a m Focus  14:24, 15 July 2013 (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.