Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oregon Mountain Community


 * 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   delete. Mkdw talk 01:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Oregon Mountain Community

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence at all that this one store would be notable by our standards. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Question: While I can't find any objective coverage of OMC as I would for say Nike, OMC is mentioned by every climbing book as a quality local resource. Just look at the "books" search above.  Does that qualify as notability?  —EncMstr (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete For what it's worth, I have been a climber for over 35 years, so have visited lots of stores selling mountaineering gear and read lots of books on the subject. They are listed in quite a few books, but those I've found are one sentence or one paragraph directory listings. This is not significant coverage. There are similar locally beloved stores in every city or big town near major climbing destinations. Most are wonderful businesses, but with some exceptions, very few are notable.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  21:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ha, that's what I thought too. I remember a cool store like that in Asheville. Cullen, one day you and I are going to Yosemite, and Mrs. Cullen will make sandwiches for us. Drmies (talk) 00:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Any time,, any time. And (Mrs. Cullen), will make something much more substantial and memorable than sandwiches.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  00:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Neutral for now - This is the only substantive article I could find, and its not that much. Nothing more than trivial mentions in the Oregonian's archives going back 30 years (I stop at that point as the historical one includes the ads, so there were a lot of hits due to ads). But, there might be coverage in trade magazines for outdoor/climbing equipment, but I'm not familiar enough with that industry to know where to look. I've heard of the place, maybe even been in there, but there is not much local media coverage. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's totally run-of-the-mill coverage by a local business magazine about a local business moving to a new location, probably the result of a press release. If that kind of coverage makes a business notable, then pretty much every small business in the country is notable. I don't think so.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  00:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And I'm going to go with a durrrrrrrrr! Did I say Keep? Nope. Did I say that news article made the article under discussion notable? Nope. Get the gist? Now, did I say "its not that much"? Yep, sure did. So not to get too snippy here, but you basically just commented to hear yourself think, as you added nothing. Anyone with half a brain could look at the article and see there was no byline, take into account how most news gets reported, and know it was a press release. So, in a nutshell, thanks for nothing. But hey, let's keep this side discussion thread going, maybe you can enlighten me with more things I've said or implied. Maybe you can move me from my keep vote that I didn't make? Aboutmovies (talk) 05:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's quite an overreaction, Aboutmovies. Try not to escalate like that in the future. rspεεr (talk) 05:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "I don't think so." Aboutmovies (talk) 06:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Uninvolved editors can decide on their own which editor got all "snippy" and emotional above, and which one didn't.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  06:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I already said I got snippy, which you know, so no need for an uninvolved editor to decide. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * When they read this discussion, they will decide, based entirely on the relative merits of what has been said above.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  07:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Appears to be a non-notable retailer from a quick perusal of the Google machine. Carrite (talk) 02:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - I can accept bizjournal as a reliable source with substantial information, but that is the only one I can find (OK, I didn't find it, Aboutmovies did), so it fails GNG and CORP by not having multiple independent, reliable, substantial sources.   78.26   (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 17:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Non notable, and I certainly do not accept any of the large number of local bizjournals as a reliable source for anything except routine facts, and certainly not as a discriminating RS for notability . They publish press releases and trivial local news items, and apparently will publish about any local business.  DGG ( talk ) 21:12, 27 December 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.