Talk:Anchor Blue Clothing Company
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Fashion WikiProject. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page to find other ways of helping. Thanks! |
||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale. |
||
| Low | This article is on a subject of Low-importance within fashion. | ||
|
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|||
 |
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject. | |
| Stub | rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. | |
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on October 11, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
I was just searching to find out what happened to the "Miller's Outpost" store near my hometown and found this page to be very useful. Please don't delete it. --Alpharigel 21:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm guessing whomever proposed this deletion is not a western US (or Florida) resident, as this retailer has over 165 stores in most western states, mostly in major shopping malls [1]. If a mall in these states has a Gap, it's not far fetched to assume it also has an Anchor Blue. I too was curious of what happened to the legendary Miller's Outpost of the 70's; It evolved into this company. If Del's Lemonade which has 45 lemonade stands (most of which confined to tiny Rhode Island) gets an article, so does Anchor Blue. Consistency folks. --Marriedtofilm 23:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
It seems there needs actual discussion due to the overzealousness of putting up ref & sources and notability tags. This is a small stub and unless there's any specific counter to this, it cites sources for anything that might seem controversial. If you need a source, what exactly else in the article needs a source? And I'll repeat that a popular clothing maker and retailer that has over 200 locations is easily notable. --Marriedtofilm 20:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Accusations of inconsistency usually follow from an assumption about what Wikipedia should be consistent about. Reading between the above lines, it sounds like size and exposure are what Wikipedia should judge things on consistency. In fact, there are specific criteria developed around the fact that Wikipedia relies on written sources: Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations). Because we are a source-based publication, having multiple non-trivial independent write-ups is the measure that Wikipedia is consistent about. From that view, Del's Lemonade and Anchor Blue Clothing Company are not comparable: a google search for Del's reveals that the first page (after the official site) is all other people writing about Del's. The same is not true for ABCC, where the first page is all directory listings (ie., trivial). This isn't an exhaustive comparison. However, when people get frustrated about apparently inconsistency they should know that Wikipedia is actually a lot more consistent than they think—Wikipedia just doesn't care about the same measures that most people assume are important. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Interesting. I guess I agree to a point regarding the Del's comparison. Yes, there are some (only some) people write about Del's on their blogs as it's kind of a novelty, but I don't think that just because people aren't always writing about a certain brand of clothing, doesn't mean the brand is insignifficant. I thought of putting a youtube video up called "rocking at anchor blue", but it seemed trivial, just as the bloggers writing about Del's. I notice a google search of Del's also has mostly directiory listings. A comparison of "Del's Lemonade" and the entire name "Anchor Blue Clothing Company" come up with about equal number of hits (about 860 each). Using this company's commonly known name "Anchor Blue" and the number goes up to 282,000 hits. --Marriedtofilm 20:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, the first three front-page links for the Google search "Del's Lemonade" were [2], [3], and [4]. None seem to be blogs. The point is that it's a bad comparison: Del's Lemonade appears to be notable because it's a cultural phenomenon (even if it's limited to Rhode Island) not because of the company itself. Anchor Blue has no cultural phenomenon attached, so its notability rests on the company alone. Because of the way Wikipedia relies on existing documentation to extablish notability, a cultural phenomenon has a much better shot at achieving "Wikipedia-notability" than a company does. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- I understand your point about Del's being a "cultural phenomenon" and that's why there's an article, not because of the scale of its business. But I would argue that Miller's Outpost, the company Anchor Blue evolved from, is a cultural phenomenon here in southern California (where there are over 100 stores) in a kitschy bad-70's-fashion kind of way. Every 30-something CA native has fond (or not fond) recolections of it. It does seem, however, that web based mentions of the kitsch phonomenon is restricted to blogs and there's no Miller's Outpost "tribute" site. I'm guessing that's why the user who wrote the 1st comment on this talk came accros this article. The user suggesting the nn is from Kentucky, which does not have this retailor, and likley was not exposed to it.--Marriedtofilm 22:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- I am the user who wrote the first comment. I am originally from Napa, California and found this wikipedia page useful, as it contained the only history about what happened to the Miller's Outpost store I used to get awesome t-shirts from. What bothers me is some guy from Kentucky decided that Anchor Blue wasn't notable for him, and decided to delete this page. I had to go to the google cache to restore it. Obviously others also found this page interesting, which alone should warrent its inclusion. How many other pages have wikipedian admins deleted that others would find useful. There's a big difference between correcting someone's spelling and deleting someones work. "edited mercilessly or redistributed by others" is not the same as "deleted without notice".--Alpharigel 18:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- The system of preserving articles of worthy subjects isn't perfect for this very reason. Usually if one ill-informed user tries to delete something notable, the WP:AFD process stops that from happening. This is an example of one that almost slipped through the cracks. Due to your diligence with this article consider yourself a hero, Alpharigel! As for other notable subjects slated for deletion, recently one editor tried to delete the extremely famous dot.com bust company EToys.com for similar reasons. See the rather amusing discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EToys.com. --Marriedtofilm 19:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- I am the user who wrote the first comment. I am originally from Napa, California and found this wikipedia page useful, as it contained the only history about what happened to the Miller's Outpost store I used to get awesome t-shirts from. What bothers me is some guy from Kentucky decided that Anchor Blue wasn't notable for him, and decided to delete this page. I had to go to the google cache to restore it. Obviously others also found this page interesting, which alone should warrent its inclusion. How many other pages have wikipedian admins deleted that others would find useful. There's a big difference between correcting someone's spelling and deleting someones work. "edited mercilessly or redistributed by others" is not the same as "deleted without notice".--Alpharigel 18:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- I understand your point about Del's being a "cultural phenomenon" and that's why there's an article, not because of the scale of its business. But I would argue that Miller's Outpost, the company Anchor Blue evolved from, is a cultural phenomenon here in southern California (where there are over 100 stores) in a kitschy bad-70's-fashion kind of way. Every 30-something CA native has fond (or not fond) recolections of it. It does seem, however, that web based mentions of the kitsch phonomenon is restricted to blogs and there's no Miller's Outpost "tribute" site. I'm guessing that's why the user who wrote the 1st comment on this talk came accros this article. The user suggesting the nn is from Kentucky, which does not have this retailor, and likley was not exposed to it.--Marriedtofilm 22:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, the first three front-page links for the Google search "Del's Lemonade" were [2], [3], and [4]. None seem to be blogs. The point is that it's a bad comparison: Del's Lemonade appears to be notable because it's a cultural phenomenon (even if it's limited to Rhode Island) not because of the company itself. Anchor Blue has no cultural phenomenon attached, so its notability rests on the company alone. Because of the way Wikipedia relies on existing documentation to extablish notability, a cultural phenomenon has a much better shot at achieving "Wikipedia-notability" than a company does. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Interesting. I guess I agree to a point regarding the Del's comparison. Yes, there are some (only some) people write about Del's on their blogs as it's kind of a novelty, but I don't think that just because people aren't always writing about a certain brand of clothing, doesn't mean the brand is insignifficant. I thought of putting a youtube video up called "rocking at anchor blue", but it seemed trivial, just as the bloggers writing about Del's. I notice a google search of Del's also has mostly directiory listings. A comparison of "Del's Lemonade" and the entire name "Anchor Blue Clothing Company" come up with about equal number of hits (about 860 each). Using this company's commonly known name "Anchor Blue" and the number goes up to 282,000 hits. --Marriedtofilm 20:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Saxifrage has kindly and skillfully pointed out what I take for the glaringly obvious. Articles need to be verifiable via reliable secondary sources. Self-published sources (eg. the Anchor Blue website) don't count. Unless everything in the article is found in the cited St. Petersburg times article, you should restore the unsourced template. Valrith 21:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- I guess it comes down to: What exactly needs sourcing? Does everything written in Wikipedia need a source footnote? For example, the article of the city of Thousand Oaks, California has History and Politics sections, but with the exception of a defunct theme park, there are absolutely no sources cited. If every non-controversial sentence in Wikipedia was sourced, we'd have more source citations than words. This is a very small stub. It appears most of what's written here (I didn't write most of it, btw) is actually verified by that St. Petersberg Times article, but some details aren't, like this company used to sell Levi's (I'm guess the aurthor is going by memory). If you feel that is a controversial statement that should be proven by a source, delete that along with the few other details. I won't counter. As for nn, I would suggest nominating it for afd. I think a large well-known retailor and clothing brand is notable, but I'll wait a couple of weeks if there's no nomination before removing that tag. --Marriedtofilm 21:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, the non-notable tag isn't an argument to delete, it's a request for editors who might know of useful material that would establish notability to include it. Currently, it looks like the Elyse Umlauf-Garneau and St. Petersberg Times articles are reasonably reliable, which qualifies it for criteria #1 of WP:CORP. They should be listed as references though, which I'll do in a second. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- I guess it comes down to: What exactly needs sourcing? Does everything written in Wikipedia need a source footnote? For example, the article of the city of Thousand Oaks, California has History and Politics sections, but with the exception of a defunct theme park, there are absolutely no sources cited. If every non-controversial sentence in Wikipedia was sourced, we'd have more source citations than words. This is a very small stub. It appears most of what's written here (I didn't write most of it, btw) is actually verified by that St. Petersberg Times article, but some details aren't, like this company used to sell Levi's (I'm guess the aurthor is going by memory). If you feel that is a controversial statement that should be proven by a source, delete that along with the few other details. I won't counter. As for nn, I would suggest nominating it for afd. I think a large well-known retailor and clothing brand is notable, but I'll wait a couple of weeks if there's no nomination before removing that tag. --Marriedtofilm 21:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
