Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of independent bookstores in 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. The consensus is keep. Feel free, should you wish to dispute, to take the conversation to Deletion Review. (non-admin closure)  D u s t i *poke* 03:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

List of independent bookstores in the United States
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unmaintainable and guaranteed never to be complete list. Wikipedia is not a directory of independent US bookstores. Fiddle  Faddle  22:37, 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 of the United States. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Nowhere in the nomination have I mentioned a thing about category vs list. I state, simply, that this is unmaintainable, and a directory. Wikipedia is not a directory. Fiddle   Faddle  23:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Most all of those bookstores listed have Wikipedia articles making this list very maintainable. Gobōnobō  + c 23:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - I was going to say that this would run into the tens of thousands of listings and run afoul of NOTDIRECTORY, but if one clicks the edit button it is specified that included listings MUST be the subject of a Wikipedia page. As such, this has limited size and a valid navigational function for users. I will make a more explicit note to the lead. Carrite (talk) 00:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, this AFD just inspired me to start a piece on a bookstore. See, it works! Carrite (talk) 01:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, valid and standard list satisfying WP:LISTPURP. That it only contains bluelinks is a rather strong argument against any claim that it is "unmaintainble," and "guaranteed never to be complete" is not a valid reason for deletion as no list is required to be complete, particularly not here where the list is limited only to notable entries (i.e., those that have or should have articles). Is the nominator confused on that point, that we commonly maintain lists on that criteria, or just unaware that this is how we index articles? Wikipedia does include directories of its own contents. postdlf (talk) 01:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In the nominator's defense, the lead didn't specify the requirement that the list MUST have an existing WP page and there were half a dozen redlinks and spamlinks that I just culled out of there. The way the lead reads now, the problem should be resolved, one would hope. Most bookstore owners know how to read, presumably. Carrite (talk) 01:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * And contra that defense of the nominator, those are obvious and standard ways to clean up a list of companies that he should have thought about before listing it for deletion. I appreciate you doing it in any event. postdlf (talk) 02:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Valid, maintainable list. Passes WP:LISTPURP. AuthorAuthor (talk) 07:53, 5 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.