Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:03, 2 July 2006

Word (bookstore)

Is a chain of 16 minority-interest bookstores notable enough for Misplaced Pages? Lurker 11:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep/expand. More than half of Australia's population is Christian, so it's not minority-interest. Along with Koorong, they are the largest chains of retailers of Christian-oriented material in Australia. --Scott Davis 12:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Can you cite a reliable source for your assertion "the largest chains of retailers of Christian-oriented material in Australia"?--A Y Arktos\ 05:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete I still think it doesn't come close to satisfying WP:CORP. Being the largest in a sector made up of small companies doesn't mean notable Lurker 13:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment Why are notability and size put together to mean each other. It is a well known Australian book store chain. Maybe the CORP guideline wasn't made up to cope with this type of situation. Ansell 13:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment Word and Koorong dominate their market in Australia, to the extent that other chains and stores have been forced to close or (in the case of at least one formerly independent chain) effectively become agents of Koorong or Word. In fact, because Koorong and Word get very significant discounts by buying in large quantities, smaller retailers can purchase stock more cheaply through retail at Koorong or Word than wholesale. Koorong and Word are much more than "the largest in a sector made up of small companies" - they dominate the sector. --Jacknstock 05:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per ScottDavis and since when has wikipedia discriminated against "minority interest". It is not like it is a small chain within its field. In Australian terms it is notable. Since the nomination only referenced the size of the store without referencing the overall market niche and they expect notability to be correlated with the total in numerical terms they seem to have missed what notability is about. Ansell 13:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is the second nomination on this page that is disrepectful to Australia. The Americans even treat their allies bad and then they wonder why the whole world despises them! Ramseystreet 21:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - not well-known enough--A Y Arktos\ 22:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • How well known would be enough in a niche market such as Christian books. It has extensive notability in Christian circles without regard to denomination, that should be notable enough for the article to exist. Ansell 02:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Response - Scott Davis was making the assertion that Christian was not minority interest in Australia. I think notability in this case needs to stand on its own merits. The article does not justify notability and I haven't heard of them - the latter point doesn't mean necessarily a lot, it does mean though that I support a delete vote without any evidence to the contrary other than assertions from other voters it is not notable.--A Y Arktos\ 05:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Your argument is much like questioning the existence of Africa because you haven't been there! Hmmmm.... maybe the moon really is made of cheese... --Jacknstock 05:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• No - the article/stub fails to tell me anything about notability in a credible way. Moreover reliable references are not cited to substantiate notability. He says / she says on AfD is no reason to change my mind. Looks like an ad to me with a link to a web site that merely sells stuff. Places are verifiable and need not meet "notability" standards. Articles on businesses need to pass Misplaced Pages:Notability (companies and corporations) to avoid the use of wikipedia as an advertising site.--A Y Arktos\ 05:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Word Bookstores (retail), Word Australia (wholesaler) and the new entity (according to reports) Word Bookstores Pty Ltd (holding company) are quite verifiable - especially considering they include 16 good-sized retail outlets (i.e., places not as big as Africa but much more accessible to anyone living in Australia). The article definitely needs improvement, including citing of references. I certainly don't want to see Misplaced Pages used as an advertising site by the Koorong/Word duopoly, which I find distasteful. However, none of this means that it would be helpful to delete the current stub. --Jacknstock 06:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for the useful ref that tells me it is a Pty Ltd company - ie not listed. Under WP:Corp one of the criteria to apply is whether the business has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself. I don't see that applies. I can see no other criterion this stub meets - other criteria for inclusion of articles on businesses refer to stock market listings. A family owned business that has been in existence for 60 years and is not mentioned in non-trivial published works, other than "new store opening" - just does not seem to warrant an encyclopaedia article. This stub has been around for a couple of months and a previous AfD debate prompted no augmentation. Is there anything to be said more about this business, is there anything that justifies not deleting this? The business exists ,but not only is Misplaced Pages not a medium for advertising, it is also not an indiscriminate collection of information --A Y Arktos\ 06:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• • One other clue to its lack of notability is that the only other article to link to this one is the other Christian bookstore chain that was previously considered for deletion.--A Y Arktos\ 06:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
    • You have made a very good case for deletion. Of course, it has been a non-profit until yesterday (and still reports itself as a non-profit on its web site), therefore could not be listed regardless of size or significance. Nonetheless, there's very little of interest to say about this company, so little value in developing an encyclopedia article. Touché! --Jacknstock 07:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. SM247 01:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I have been unable to find verifiable references from reliable sources about this bookstore. As such, I don't think it meets WP:CORP. I would change my vote if verifiable sources could be found and placed in the article. Capitalistroadster 02:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Are you saying that you couldn't verify its existence? Ansell 02:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • A search for references to the company from australian web pages brings up numerous references, such as for one. Ansell 02:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The link given by Ansell (http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/sydneystories/P50/) has no reference to this bookshop that I could find. The link should have been http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/sydneystories/P75/ as of today. A reference to an April merely says a bookshop will open. Doesn't prove notability. I see nothing in the first 10 Google hits that supports an assertion of notability.--A Y Arktos\ 05:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• keep+expand Joeyramoney 03:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Word is notable as an Australian book retailer and publisher. --Jacknstock 03:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep this is an Australia wide chain of bookstores, if this in not notable then most of Category:Bookstores of Australia should also be deleted. Paul foord 05:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)