Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russell Books


 * 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Russell Books

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet WP:NCORP. Small local book store (with one current location in Victoria, BC?). Routine local coverage in Victoria. There was one publicity event (stacking books) that gathered some local coverage but I don't think this is sufficient for notability. MB 17:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MB 17:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. MB 17:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. MB 17:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep It's not exactly prevalent, but there's coverage from national sources out there, such as this CBC story. There is also a claim in this Colonist story that Russell has the largest stock of books of any store in Canada, at over 1 million volumes. Some of the local coverage provides decent depth, too, once you wade through all the book stacking stuff. I think the article sells the subject short, and would benefit from a more potent claim to notability than the book stacking event, but Russell Books appears to be a major independent bookseller on a national scale. Skeletor3000 (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That CBC story is from the CBC's local bureau in Vancouver/Victoria, not from the national news division, so it's not really a "national" source. That's not to say it's worth nothing, but it isn't a "national coverage = CORPDEPTH pass booyah!" mic drop all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Although I pointed out that the CBC source isn't a notability-clincher all by itself, as it's local coverage from the CBC's local news bureau rather than nationalized coverage, I did a ProQuest search and was able to find a decent volume of other coverage. The problem here wasn't really that coverage doesn't exist — it's just the usual story, that Wikipedians tend to be lazy and just source stuff to Google hits instead of making an effort to find older coverage in news archiving databases. But I get 339 hits dating all the way back to 1985, and for a store that's existed since 1962 I'm certain that I'd have found even more if the database I was able to search actually went any further back than 1982. They won't all be useful hits, some of them are just event calendars — but I've already pulled over a dozen useful hits, covering it in the context of considerably more than just the book stack. Bearcat (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * And after having used "Russell Books Victoria" to filter out hits on the Russell Books in Montreal, then I actually read the damn article more carefully and let out a Homer Simpson d'oh. There you go: the coverage expands to Montreal too. And a journalist-written obituary of Reg Russell in The Globe and Mail, to boot, containing more than enough information about the history of the store to count as a notability-assisting source even though the store isn't its primary subject per se. I've bumped up the referencing accordingly, and I think we're clearly over the bar now. Bearcat (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2019 (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.