Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodward's building

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 of the debate was keep. -- BD2412 ^talk 05:22, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Woodward's building

• Merge with Woodwards. There is a problem as the Woodward's building article is well written, yet is redundant compaired to the Woodwards article. The Woodwards article has more information but is badly organized. If I was a better editer, I'd rearragne the Woodwards article, but I believe someone else could do more justice to it. I also have a feeling that the Woodwards article is miss-named as the "s" on the end is posessive as in "Woodward's building". Zhatt 1 July 2005 08:50 (UTC)
  • Keep. The articles have been cleaned up and I now realize the distinction between the two. Zhatt 4 July 2005 20:51 (UTC)
• Strong Keep for both. Woodwards the department store chain was a very important chain of department stores in Western Canada, and is quite notable in itself. The Woodward's building was just one of many of their locations. The Woodwards Building has become a very important political symbol that has absolutely nothing to do with its former role as a a department store. Saving the building has been cited as one of Mayor Larry Campbell's primary achievements in office. Merging the two articles is a very bad idea. Both articles need to be cleaned up a bit and more information should be added but that is not a reason for either deleting or merging the two articles. The building has been the site of a very visible squat, many protests, it has been the subject of literally thousands of hours of City meetings, a documentary movie (or 2), and millions of dollars has been spent trying to save it. None of this has anything to do with its old role as a department store, except that many Vancouverites have sentimental memories about it. -- Webgeer July 1, 2005 20:39 (UTC)
• Keep. I disagree that the articles are redundant. Woodward's was an important retailer in Western Canada and its article attempts to document that. Very little is said of the building there. The Woodward's building was the prominent location and Western base for Woodward and as Webgeer stated, now of some political importance as well. Its page tries to document that. I think they are both encyclopedic and expandable. The city of Vancouver's page on the building briefly describes some of the building's importance to the city. I would support a move of the Woodwards page to Woodward's, however. DoubleBlue (Talk) 2 July 2005 09:29 (UTC)
• Keep, a good article on what seems to be an important landmark. - SimonP July 2, 2005 14:47 (UTC)
• Keep - now a good article on building of significance in Vancouver. Capitalistroadster 3 July 2005 00:30 (UTC)
• Keep. --NormanEinstein July 7, 2005 01:35 (UTC)
• Keep. The building has a life of its own and will continue for many years. Woodward's the company is quite another story (now in the past tense). Sunray July 7, 2005 05:43 (UTC)
• Keep. Major Vancouver landmark. maclean25 01:59, 10 July 2005 (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.