Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bloomingdales locations

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. Herostratus 22:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bloomingdales locations

WP:NOT a directory. The store's own website is the proper place for this information Daniel Case 16:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A similar discussion is on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Parisian locations; this should probably be listed there instead. Tuxide 01:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 20#Category:Store locations listed here for convenience.

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. If you want to know where the nearest store is, Gooogle it. --Cyrus Andiron 17:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question what about the rest of Category:Store locations? Are there going to be follow-up nominations for it? FrozenPurpleCube 19:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In other words, WP:ALLORNOTHING. In all honesty, yes, all of those should go. I have frequently removed such lists from articles; I don't see why we need to have them. But perhaps this requires one of those general discussions rather an AFD. In the meantime we should still delete this. Daniel Case 03:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, in other words, I want to know what you wish to do about the rest of the category which has similar problems. I make no argument, I wish to see information as to your position. Whenever I see an AFD that represents what I see as but one part of a small problem, I like to know what the nomination plans to do about the rest of the category. I've seen many times a nomination made without what I consider even that basic checking. Thus my question. FrozenPurpleCube 15:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The entire category, save the misplaced Macy's West, is now up for deletion. See below for link. Daniel Case 18:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are a few very famous stores for which it might possibly be appropriate; if so, this is one, as are the others in the category. But frankly I think the category is so susceptible to abuse that neither the category nor the lists should be around--the potential for commercial spam is self-evident. This is a good time to get them all.DGG 04:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep per FrozenPurpleCube. To kill the article is to kill the category. Lostinlodos 08:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And we're doing that. See below. Daniel Case 18:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is not doubt to me this is the sort of article WP:NOT is aimed at. Ohconfucius 09:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator as failing WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. By popular request (sic), the others have been put up for deletion here. Ohconfucius 09:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not removing it, but...uh, you are voting delete twice? :-) What is this, Florida? Would you like to vote a third time too? </end of fun sarcasm> Tuxide 05:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've been reminded that AFD is not a vote, but a consensus. Tuxide 05:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a directory. As others have said, WP:NOT a directory. Mango juice^talk 17:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong keep~~ Merge Passes WP:ORG, which says 'a "List of Wal-Marts in China" would be informative.' Tuxide of WikiProject Retailing 01:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But see the whole passage: "Since there is generally very little to say about individual stores or franchises that isn't true for the chain in general, we should not have articles on such individual stores." To me that means we don't need lists of locations. There have been Bloomingdale's in the US for a lot longer than there have been Wal-Marts in China. Their mere existence is not notable as the Wal-Marts would be (actually, given that Wal-Mart has now been in China for a while, the example should be changed to "List of Wal-Marts in North Korea"). Daniel Case 03:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The original passage was 'a "List of Wal-Marts in Germany" would be informative'; however it was changed to China because Wal-Mart moved out of Germany and it sounded more foreign than "List of Wal-Marts in Canada". As per List of assets owned by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., I don't think there are Wal-Marts in North Korea either. Tuxide 03:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see how that statement is extended to lists given the passage that follows it. It's there to prevent the creation of articles on individual units like SuperTarget on 168th and Maple in Omaha, Nebraska (although SuperTarget on 132nd and Maple in Omaha, Nebraska could be notable since it is the first ever SuperTarget, but I wouldn't give it its own article. Flagship stores would be more notable, but unless enough can be said on it that can bring such an article on it to FA status then they should go in with the article on the chain). Tuxide 10:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I change my vote to Keep meaning I could be swayed since it fails WP:V anyways. I am not convinced that deleting it is the right answer, since cleanup templates such as {{unreferenced}}, {{list to prose (section)}}, {{cleanup-laundry}}, etc. could also resolve this. Tuxide 04:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm changing my vote again to merge, since I think simply marking them up with cleanup tags like I mentioned above so the information can be neutralized would be better. Tuxide 15:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How does this fail WP:NOT#DIR? I am not seeing it. In the context of an AFD nom, a directory is a list of pointers, like a web directory. This article is merely a list of units (or former units) by state, and for each one lists the city it was in, the mall it anchored (many shopping centers have their own articles), and historical information such as the year it opened and closed. They do not list either the street address or the phone numbers for each unit, thus the Yellow Pages argument is invalid, especially when the unit is defunct. Thus I ask, is this list even a directory to begin with, and if so then how? If it is, then WP:NOT#DIR would conflict directly with what WP:ORG says concerning lists of units in a chain. Tuxide 07:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They do not list either the street address or the phone numbers for each unit, thus the Yellow Pages argument is invalid So you're saying that it's a useless directory, then? --Calton | Talk 02:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am saying that it is not a directory and passes WP:NOT#DIR. Tuxide 02:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you've simply excluded some factors that would make it a useful directory, while leaving its essential nature intact. Unless you're trying to claim that usefulness is the essential quality that makes a directory a directory? --Calton | Talk 05:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sure, maybe Bloomingdale's website lists the current locations, but do they list when each location opened? Do they list former locations on their website?... see where I'm going with this? TenPoundHammer 00:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grasping at straws, maybe? --Calton | Talk 02:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 08:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closing admin This needs to be closed alongside Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Parisian locations (which is newer), given that this is part of a WP:ALLORNOTHING motive. Tuxide 21:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOT a directory, as has been noted by many others. Quale 02:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh look, a directory. OBVIOUS Delete. --Calton | Talk 02:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With the recent comments, this is becoming uncivil. I am bringing this up on WP:WQA. Tuxide 02:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out reality -- you know, actual policy -- is uncivil? Live and learn. --Calton | Talk 05:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory. >Radiant< 07:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. Maybe there should be a Wikirectory for these types of articles. -- Jreferee 05:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note from nominator. Tuxide and I discussed this briefly on our talk pages, and I feel that this information could be kept within the articles about the history of the various chains, where such articles exist, if they could be not only prosified but prosified in a historical context. That, to me, would be an encyclopedic use of the information. If it is closed in favor of deletion, at least let the WP:RETAIL people save it for their sandboxes or wherever so they have it at the ready to put in the proper format. Daniel Case 16:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with this statement, from other keep comments WP:RETAIL and WP:MALLS obviously has enough manpower maintaining these lists to make neutralizing the content and integrating it into the history with citations doable, similar to Target Corporation#History. We will, however, need the edit history to be publicly available to make this action GFDL compliant. In that case, merge and redirect is most appropriate for legal reasons. Tuxide 00:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let's call it merge and prosify. The main consideration for a redirect is whether anyone will be likely to use it as a search term. I doubt anybody but the listkeepers will be typing that in in months to come. Most people, particularly non-editors, will type in Bloomingdale's and expect the information to be there or in a possible daughter article like History of Bloomingdale's. Daniel Case 12:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, you're the nominator so you can most certainly withdraw it. I suggest they be marked as {{unreferenced}}, {{list to prose (section)}}, {{cleanup-laundry}}, {{mergeto}} (for non-embedded lists), etc. I'm not going to work on them now because it's the week before finals in the university. My main argument towards having a redirect is the GFDL. The revisions of the lists themselves absolutely need to be available on Wikipedia if we're deriving history sections off of them. If an admin is willing to merge the history of the two articles together, that would be great and would defeat the purpose of keeping around a redirect. I don't know if MediaWiki allows this. Tuxide 19:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is your interest, you can copy all the information to the articles about the history of the various chains. Wikipedia is free content that can be used anywhere, even in other Wikipedia articles. You do not need the results of the AfD to take such actions. -- Jreferee 14:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.