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 ALL.Herostratus 22:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Parisian locations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Saks Fifth Avenue locations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Nordstrom locations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Neiman Marcus locations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of former Mervyns locations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of former Marshall Field's locations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Lord & Taylor locations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

These are sprawling lists of store locations, admittedly of some of the largest chains in the United States, but these are just a copy out of the corporate directory with no value added. However, these lists appear to fail WP:ORG and is definitely what WP:NOT#DIRECTORY was meant to cover, there is nothing of encyclopaedic interest. Although each of these articles may stand or fall on its own merits, I am prepared to take the risk with this group, which appears to me to be sufficiently homogeneous to nominate in one go. I beg to move for deletion of this whole lot. Ohconfucius 09:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bloomingdales locations listed here for convenience.

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

Comment to nominator I don't see how they fail either WP:NOT#DIRECTORY or WP:ORG. In my opinion, they clearly pass WP:ORG, which says the following: "... a 'List of Wal-Marts in China' would be informative." I do admit they're not scannable; thus I have discussion on Wikipedia:WikiProject Retailing/Listings of former locations for those who care about the cosmetics of these pages. Tuxide of WikiProject Retailing 01:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment to nominator: I don't see how they fail WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, either; nowhere do I see anything that even suggests that listing stores is not Wikipedia-worthy. And I don't think that the lists have "no value added"; adding that store X used to be store Y seems to add at least a little value in my opinion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 20:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All I'm inclined to agree with the nominator that this list has no encyclopedic value. Wikipedia is not a directory and that appears to be the focus of these articles. Why not have List of McDonald's locations? --Cyrus Andiron 13:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ORG says the following:

    In a few rare cases, an individual location will also have architectural peculiarities that makes it unique and notable, such as the Winston-Salem Shell gas station or the Vinita, Oklahoma McDonald's; however, a "List of Wal-Marts in China" would be informative.

    — WP:ORG

    Thus, I see nothing wrong with having a List of McDonald's locations. Tuxide 20:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think you failed to grasp the last part of that sentence: "In China". It doesn't say "In the United States". The reason the "In China" article would be acceptable is that are only 45 Wal Mart stores in China. By comparison, there are 2,285 Wal Mart Supercenters in the United States (as well as over 1,000 discount stores). The "In China" article could be acceptable because Wal-Mart is considered an international company there, and thus notable as a successful American company trying to make the cross over. An article that listed United States locations would be a directory (and deleted as such) because this is the English Wikipedia. Comparatively, an article on List of McDonald's locations would be deleted as a directory because Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. Someone in the United States reading a list of "Wal Marts in China" probably does not have the capacity to visit one or look in the phone book for information. Conversely, someone in the United States looking for a McDonald's could look in a phone book. And there lies the difference. If you can find it in your phone book, it's directory matieral and thus falls into WP:NOT. A list of Wal Marts in China, is not phone book material (for the most part) for someone using the English Wikipedia. As it relates to this article, all the information contained in this list could be found in a phone book. It is also directory material and should be deleted as such. --Cyrus Andiron 13:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It says "in China" because I changed it myself. It used to say "List of Wal-Marts in Germany" up until mid-2006, but then Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. moved out of that country. I don't know who wrote the original version of the sentence, but during the time we chose to change it to either China or Canada. Canada and United States didn't sound as foreign as the original example. I am still not seeing how a list of McDonald's locations is a directory when it has the attributes that we're using such as city, state, year opened, year remodeled, year closed, etc. (and lacks the attributes that we're not using, such as street and phone number). My point is that business cannot be conducted with such a list. Tuxide 20:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all - no added value, Wiki is not the yellow pages!Madmedea 13:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, but do yellow pages list former locations? Most of the time, no. (Granted, my local yellow pages still list a 7-Eleven that closed 15 years ago, but I digress.) TenPoundHammer 20:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete all and then move on to Category:Store locations. This is the sort of thing that absolutely does not need to be on here ... unencylopedic and borderline spammy. 15:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC) This was my vote, incompletely signed, and I have modified it and explained why below. Daniel Case 12:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete all as well. WP:NOT#DIR, and if these aren't directory style entries I don't know what is. I doubt there is any need for further elaboration ... Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all This is a textbook case of the "not directory" clause. YechielMan 16:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, clearly the kind of thing WP:NOT#DIR was designed to discourage. And we definitely should discourage it: Wikipedia should not become a free substitute for listing a business in the Yellow Pages, especially not one where (apparently) only chain stores are allowed. Mangojuice^talk 17:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ORG has a guideline explicitly for chain stores that states such lists would be informative. Tuxide 07:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep all This information is extremely valuable and often not found anywhere else. I myself frequently refer to these pages when needing information on historical reports for college classes and other research. Isn't an encyclopedia designed for research? I can understand if you feel the locations list should not have a seperate page, however, the suggestion then should be to merge the information back onto the main page of the store itself. Many, many, many retail companies (not just department stores) have a list of their locations on their respective wiki pages. I'd also like to add that much of the information on these opages is historical. It isn't simply a list of what's there today, but what used to be there, and when...a historical refrence. PanzaM22 18:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC) Mike[reply]
  • I agree fully with you. These data are of historical importance. TenPoundHammer 20:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have contributed to some of these pages, and feel that they have a right to stay for anyone wishing to look up the information Yankeyfan315 15:01, 20 April 2007
  • See WP:USEFUL. Encyclopedias are designed for reference, not research. As for the articles that have location lists, I have deleted those when I have found them, and expect to do more of that in the future. It is more information than is needed for an encyclopedia article and needlessly duplicates what the company has on its own webpage. Daniel Case 18:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Trends in expansion of retailers may be encyclopedic. Tuxide of WikiProject Retailing 01:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • And there are better ways to document them than maintaining a directory. General discussions in the text, with the appropriate footnotes, are encyclopedic and sufficient. Daniel Case 03:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • If that is your counterargument, then AFD and deleting lists like you have been is not appropriate for this. Instead, if you strongly believe it is more appropriate in paragraph prose, then I suggest they be marked as {{list to prose (section)}} instead as nominated as AFD. Tuxide 03:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're missing the point. I (and it's not just me) have been deleting and nominating these because the information itself is unencyclopedic', not because of how it's formatted. Hidden, prosified, makes no difference. An encyclopedia does not need a list of every single present or former location of a retail chain.

        To clarify what I said above, it is better to simply say "McBlow's is moving aggressively into Kansas and Missouri" with footnotes to press releases or news articles, than to list all the planned locations like "Podunk, Missouri; Whistlestop, Kansas (opening January 2008)". Daniel Case 03:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

        • I can understand how listings of future locations are not encyclopedic since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; however, what bothers me is that you guys are using AFD to illustrate your point. WP:ORG says that 'a "List of Wal-Marts in China" would be informative' which to me clearly contradicts with most of what you said. This should've been brought up on that talk page or the WikiProject that maintains it instead of here. Tuxide 04:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Rather, {{cleanup-laundry}} is the one I'm looking for. Tuxide 04:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - Wikipedia is not a street directory. -- The Anome 20:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How the hell are these street directories? They do not list addresses or phone numbers. They provide a semantic relationship between articles about retail chains and articles about the shopping malls that they anchor, and in a way that a category cannot. Tuxide 20:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep all or Merge. I created the Former Mervyn's list because I was going to add current Mervyn's to the list too. However, the data for current locations are not readily available (Mervyn's store locator only lists the three nearest stores to any given point, and doesn't a full directory), so I haven't added the Mervyn's listings yet. As for the others, I feel that the listings could be merged into their respective store articles... but made into hidden lists, like found on Woolco and Dillard's. So many people have contributed to some of these lists; it would likely be upsetting for the listings to be deleted. To hell with what WP:USEFUL says -- I honestly think that such data are useful, especially in cases like Mervyn's, which has seen a slew of closings lately. (I just knew this vote would be edit conflicted, too...) TenPoundHammer 20:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of us, myself included, contributed over time to the deleted "Chuck Cunningham syndrome" article (now a redirect). We got very emotional about keeping it. We lost anyway for the simple reason that we couldn't find any good policy reasons to keep it, and the delete votes had more policy on their side. It's the same situation here. Daniel Case 03:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Merge per my comment above. Tuxide of WikiProject Retailing 01:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I change my vote to Keep meaning I could be swayed since many of these fail WP:V. I am not convinced that deleting all of them 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 was going to say the same thing about the unreferenced lists (e. g. my Mervyn's locations). I really do not want to see these lists disappear since so much work has been put into all of the lists. TenPoundHammer 00:02, 22 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 15:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep or merge per TenPoundHammer --Caldorwards4 01:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to keep voters. I commend this vote and this discussion to your attention. The Airports project has been reaching a consensus that lists of former airlines and destinations simply aren't encyclopedic. I see no difference here. Yes, there were keep votes and dissenting opinions; however the consensus is clear. Daniel Case 03:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment How does these 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. These articles are merely lists 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 chain is defunct. Thus I ask, are these lists even a directory to begin with, and if so then how? If they are, 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]
  • Agreed fully with the above. I don't see how the lists fail WP:NOT#DIR at all. They don't give telephone directory-style listings, just city, state, name of mall, square footage, date of opening and closing. Oh well, this one seems to be headed for I'm hoping for a non-consensus default keep... I've got my fingers crossed. TenPoundHammer 00:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • They don't give telephone directory-style listings Which, even worse, merely makes them useless directories instead of useful ones. --Calton | Talk 01:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • To you, maybe. I'm sure that there are many people out there wondering such things as "Didn't this Dillard's used to be McAlpin's?" or "When did this Bloomingdale's open?" or "I know there used to be a Mervyn's at Northtown Mall; when did it close?", etc. To me, facts such as square footage, date of opening, and what a store replaced are valid, encyclopedic data -- worthy not only of keeping, but also of keeping in a convenient, easy-to-read list format. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 02:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 08:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. As said above, Wikipedia is NOT a street directory. --98E 22:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How are these even a street directory? Nobody has bothered to counter my argument yet. Tuxide 22:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's what I'd like to know too. I don't see at all how these are just street directories. They don't just copy the corporate directory; I'm sure the corporate directory doesn't list former locations, or whether a store replaced another store... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 17:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. About as textbook a case of WP:NOT#DIR as I've ever seen. And lists of former locations? Not even close to useful. --Calton | Talk 01:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Former locations can be useful, mainly in showing marketing trends. Also, there are many people, like me, who like to know where certain stores used to be. I'm surely not the only one who might be wondering things like, "didn't there used to be a store in such-and-such town?". As far as I know, no other site has such a listing readily available. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 02:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to closing admin This needs to be closed alongside Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bloomingdales locations (which is older), given that this is part of a WP:ALLORNOTHING motive. Tuxide 04:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. WP:NOT a directory, as noted by many others. Quale 02:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment With the recent comments, this is becoming uncivil. I am bringing this up on WP:WQA. Tuxide 02:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep All per TenPoundHammer ManoloChoo 03:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory. >Radiant< 07:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you people that are saying "not a directory" even reading our arguments to the contrary?! Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 18:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You mean the argument that since it lacks phone numbers, it's not a directory? Or the argument that you like reading about past stores in a location? I find neither very compelling. >Radiant< 08:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was thinking more about the fact that these lists include square footage, date of opening/closing, and if a store replaced another, which seems to make them more informative than regular directories. I have never seen square footage/date of opening/etc. in phone books or store locators or whatever; have you? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 20:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wikipedia is also not an indiscriminate collection of information. Or, to put it differently, do you have any reliable external sources for that? >Radiant< 08:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't see what you mean in your first sentence. They are indeed discriminate; they are lists of units where the discriminator is that they belong to a specific chain. My personal problem with them is that they are lists with scannability problems and they mess up the table of contents. The content would be more appropriate in the history sections of their respective articles after they've been neutralized and cited. Tuxide 18:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I am ambivalent about these directories; they're dry, difficult to attribute and maintain, and they can easily fall vicitim to vandalism if editors aren't vigilant. However, after getting involved with some of these lists through vandal fighting- I did find that they provide an interesting portrait of the ebb and flow of the development of certain retail giants that is not available elsewhere. I can easily see how someone doing research on a store's history would find one of the better referenced lists extremely useful. I don't see the airport discussion mentioned above as exactly parallel because opening/closing a store involves more capital than the gate fees etc involved with flying/not flying to a destination. So I say keep them and reformat. —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 05:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and prosify. To repeat what I said over at the deletion discussion for the Bloomingdale's list, I have discussed this with Tuxide and we have both come to a conclusion that the information presented in these articles is encyclopedic (see above comment for a better explanation of why); however it could and should be presented as a prose history rather than a list. I would therefore ask that any closing admin at least allow the WP:RETAIL editors to copy the contents of these lists into sandboxes in their user spaces in order to more efficiently facilitate their transformation into acceptable articles or portions thereof. Daniel Case 12:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need only ask an admin to WP:USERFY the information. -- Jreferee 21:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all Per WP:Lists, lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources. No membership criteria is listed, and to the extent it is in the name of the article, it is not based on definitions made by reputable sources. Good information and it might be true, but the list does not meet WP:NOT policy. Wikipedia is not a collections of public domain or other source material, Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -- Jreferee 21:14, 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.