Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Word (bookstore)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Jaranda wat's sup 04:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Word (bookstore)

Is a chain of 16 minority-interest bookstores notable enough for Wikipedia? 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 Talk 12:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to guess that Christians that shop in Christian book stores are a minority though... - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 03:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that people who shop in any book stores are probably a minority, too! --Jacknstock 03:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I did discover that bookshops sell books! ABS Book retailers report says that 78% of the income from sale of new books ($1,406.5m) went to book shops ($1,103.3m). That's a total of about $70/person/year spent on books. It doesn't name brands or genres though. --Scott Davis Talk 05:00, 3 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\talk 05:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • No. The closest I can get is The Word Group Australia is Australia's leading Christian communications company, serving the church, colleges, and individuals with the best in Christian resources. from the bottom of their own info. Can you cite a reliable source that A&R is bigger (as a retailer)? It would help to settle this if we could find such. --Scott Davis Talk 05:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Angus and Robertson has 170 stores[1] - I suspect 16:170 indicates A&R is substantially bigger--A Y Arktos\talk 11:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • For all those stores, (they claim twice the number f their nearest competitor who I assume is dymocks), thier market share is claimed to be 18%[2]--A Y Arktos\talk 00:10, 7 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\talk 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\talk 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)
  • 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia not a medium for advertising, it is also not an indiscriminate collection of information --A Y Arktos\talk 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\talk 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. SM247My Talk 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 [3] for one. Ansell 02:23, 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)
    • I agree only Angus and Robertson and Dymocks meet the notability criteria.--A Y Arktos\talk 11:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
      • You agree? He was not stating what you said. What harm is there in having the top sellers of specialist books even if they do not compare to the general booksellers. Ansell 00:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
        • The harm is that this retailer does not fit WP:Corp - any moment now and someone will be advocating inclusion of all sorts of specialist businesses, eg the only maker of candles in Hahndorf [4] - there are criteria for inclusion - address those or seek to have them changed - AfD is not a good place for getting such guidelines changed.
I addressed User:Paul foord's suggestion that the contents of Category:Bookstores of Australia should also be deleted - I agree with him bar two notable retailers, they should be kept both for their size and their longevity, pus A&R is a notable publisher. Not also What links here for A&R plus what links here for Dymocks compared with What links here for the Word retailer and similarly what links here for Koorong--A Y Arktos\talk 01:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Abstain. I abstain. --Jewbo Wales, LOL 07:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have expanded the article with some history and current locations based on references raised here. This article is currently the largest in Category:Bookstores of Australia. I would love to be able to provide a reference that Word is a significant retailer. I note that since both Angus & Robertson and Dymocks are both franchises, it's possible that Word and Koorong are the biggest book retailers in Australia, but I cannot find any statistics about book sellers. --Scott Davis Talk 09:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • This would be quite frankly classified as a small business. In 2004 according to the ABS site (very cursory search) there were 1,660,000 operators of the 1,269,000 non-agricultural small businesses in Australia. Of these admittedly 72.6% were small businesses with only one operator. There are though an awful lot of business with less than 100 employees (which this is likely to be, or at any rate not much bigger) - that is the market for Howard's workplace reforms. I really do not see that these businesses are going be notable. Of course they occupy a niche - that is what businesses do. If you want to include such businesses, address the policy at WP:Corp. The recent additions do not make this business notable. Turnover by the way is probably commercial in confidence - I doubt if it is published for non-public companies.--A Y Arktos\talk 11:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If someone added useful statistics about book retailing in Australia, comparing Word with other book retailers in Australia, or some interesting controversy (e.g., how a fairly large retailer managed to remain a tax-free "non-profit" despite ruthlessly driving competitors out of business), this article could be worth keeping. --Jacknstock 14:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable enough. 16 bookstores + publishing covers a very large area —Pengo 06:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - as per Scott Davis & Pengo. There's no reason to delete this - Word Bookstore is definitely notable among the Christian community (as is Koorong) which should qualify. A cleanup would be nice though. (JROBBO 06:24, 6 July 2006 (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.