Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Happy Harbor Comics

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 no consensus. Bearian (talk) 00:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy_Harbor_Comics

Happy_Harbor_Comics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article about a company that does not indicate the importance of the subject GreenGourd 15:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete Completely non-notable. Jmlk17 04:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• I take it the above two missed the claims of importance contained within the article. Because if they disagreed with them, they would have said. For the record, the article states the chain is 2007 Eisner Nominee For Retailer Of The Year, 2007 Harry Kremer Award Winner For Outstanding Canadian Comic Book Retailer, 2007 Reader's Choice Award For Edmonton's Best Comic Store, 2006 Eisner Nominee For Retailer Of The Year, 2006 Harry Kremer Award For Canadian Retailer Of The Year Runner-Up and 2006 Reader's Choice Award For Edmonton's Best Comic Store Runner-Up. Now I'm well aware that Wikipedia can't be a directory of every shop in the world, but rather than bandy about shortcuts, let's judge each article individually. Where do people stand on the article in question and the facts it asserts, could we stretch to include articles on chains of shops which have achievements such as this, or is this a bridge too far at present? Hiding T 11:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

My original nomination of the case for speedy deletion and subsequent listing here speak for themselves. But I don't think this is a particularly close case. The one-sentence article does not itself make any claims of notability. One might read the list of awards and recognitions as an assertion of notability, but that would be an unusually generous reading. In any event, we are presented with an article about a group of local comic stores that are, at most, apparently well-liked. It is difficult for me to see why an encyclopedia article about those stores is warranted. GreenGourd (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't realised it was generous to read a list of awards as an assertion of having achieved something. I also hadn't realised our speedy deletion criteria had been amended to allow not-notable articles to be deleted. All I'm trying to do here is make sure we keep the debate focussed on the article itself and stay intellectually honest. It's much better to debate whether an encyclopedia article about these stores is warranted than about acronyms, abbreviations and procedures. Hiding T 13:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I have added the 'notable' part of why I included Happy Harbor, being one of their recent fund raisers for the community. I am still trying to find corroborating evidence for their same efforts for 2007. Sketchpcis (talk) 12:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• When will I know that this issue has been settled? Just curious if I've given enough information or not to warrant keeping the entry up. Sketchpcis (talk) 02:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 11:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete as this store may actually hold some regional notability, and thus I'm gonna have to go with WP:IDONTKNOWIT as there does seem to be some legitimacy behind these awards. That being said, this worried me. And I do wonder why the awards either don't have a wiki article, or make no mention of this store in the wiki article (the Eisner Award article makes no reference to it). Combined with no real notability outside a regional area (in which it may be impossible to determine the notoability of) and the lack of defined notability in the article other than awards with questionable notability themselves, I give this a weak delete. I could be swayed, however, if I saw something that would suggest notability within the area, or if the awards given affected such notability. --EnhancedDownloadBird ^(Upload) - 19:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

So a company's importance is based on if its awards and recognitions are listed on Wikipedia, and its importance reginally means nothing if it's not in a global scale? Just want to clarify, as that's pretty much what you just said here =\...Also, there was a link to the company's regional work for charity within the province of Alberta, not just Edmonton. And why on earth would the forums worry you? We're not judging the company based on a forum (not particularly associated with the company, I might ad) that is hosted and maintained by the owner of the company, we're judging if the legitimacy of the awards, and the regional work down for Alberta/Canadian charities is note-worthy enough to include the company on wikipedia. (also, Want to know why it's not listed on the wiki for the Eisner award winners? Because It was only a Nominee) Please, try to keep this on topic, and not try to draw in things and issues that have little to no bearing on the legitimacy of this article being posted on wikipedia. I would still like to know when a decision is going to be made in full, one way or the other. Sketchpcis (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Woah, hold up, the thing that made me only put it as weak delete IS regional importance, that's why I pointed to WP:IDONTKNOWIT. That being said however, it is hard for us to establish the awards as notable if they have not already been deemed notable.

1. I'm not saying that they aren't notable since they aren't on Wikipedia. I was saying rather that the awards not having articles on Wikipedia makes us question their notability.

2. If we had an article for everything that donated a significant sum to charity, we would have many articles.

3. I have no idea how notable it IS in the area, and you're pointing to awards. I have no idea how notable the awards are in the area either.

4. And really, I realize it was a nominee, but the category you say it was nominated for is not on the Eisner awards wiki, whether it was a nominee or not.

5. Generally, wiki articles being watched on forums were done either for fun, to impress somebody, or by somebody affiliated with the article in an unacceptable way. The forum thing can't be quoted as policy, and I don't use it as such, but it does still worry me.

Anything else? Have I cleared things up a little? Basically, I don't need you to establish a huge amount of notability. Just show me that it is notable in a regional area and I can be persuaded to declare that I don't know it, but it sounds good. --EnhancedDownloadBird ^(Upload) - 00:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you've cleared things up quite a bit more. Unfortunately, I really don't know -how- to make this seem more notable than I already have =\. I've told the actual owner (Jay) about the article, and to come and add more to it as he sees fit to make it more notable, but he hasn't really done as such (from what I can tell). And I can assure you that I did not make the Article with any ulterior motives, besides putting an article about what I feel (yes, this is bias :P) is a very good comic book store that does a great deal of good for the community it's a part of. At any rate, if this is removed, I at least understand -why- it is. I just hope it meets whatever standards to stay up. EDIT: I will say to #2 of your points is a rather weak argument ;)...I believe that if organizations or companies that donate large sums to ANY charity should be deemed noteworthy, but that is again a biased opinion, and I'm trying to keep this article as unbiased as possible.Sketchpcis (talk) 02:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - Reader's choice awards wouldn't really count as significant but the Harry Kremer Awards and some press coverage makes it a bare squeak past the notability bar for me. -- Whpq (talk) 16:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - I'm not sure I believe the awards, but assume good faith, right? Some documentation of the awards/nominations being real and not just something you get by signing up would be nice. Hobit (talk) 08:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• Stronge delete - With all due respect to Sketchpcis (talk), these are just some local, if well-respected, shops. They're not notable enough to warrant an entry in an encyclopedia. GreenGourd (talk) 07:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The Eisner award is the notable one, and the shop is only a nominee there, not a winner. The Kremer award might qualify for notability, but in my judgement is too new and perhaps too limited. Pastordavid (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The Eisner nomination is not notable, as anyone in business over two years can be nominated by anyone, but the Kremer is of national scope, and seems reasonably notable, though new. Readers' Choice award adds to this.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 20:36, 19 December 2007 (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.