Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Myer stores

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2009 February 28.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. MBisanz ^talk 07:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Myer stores

WP:NOTDIR. Punk Boi 8 talk 07:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep Myer is Australia's largest chain of department stores, and when stores are opened or closed they're covered in the business section of major newspapers - all of them are large businesses which employ dozens of people and have large revenues, and they're typically an 'anchor' store at large shopping centres. While few Myer stores are notable in isolation, a list of them seems to meet the relevant guidelines for inclusion. Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 09:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as per Nick-D. --Bduke (Discussion) 10:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTDIR --Dmol (talk) 10:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - what bit of WP:NOTDIR is being called in here ? This article appears to be a legitimate list that satisfies one of the things lists here are good for - a common set of article information that is ordered better than a category can. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it were supermarkets I'd vote delete, but Myer and David Jones are kind of unique in the Australian context and, as others have mentioned, their moving into or out of particular shopping centres is often the topic of much RS coverage. Orderinchaos 11:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
much RS coverage? I dispute that the coverage would be advertorial paid for by both the tennent and the centre management its just normal business practise to advertise. Gnan garra 14:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say all of it was positive - in fact I had Greensborough Plaza firmly in mind when writing that. Orderinchaos 00:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am at a loss to see what is encyclopedic about the list. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ditto. Unsourced directory of no encyclopaedic value that I can think of. Djanga 11:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The "List" has sources so it's not totally unsourced. However this list does need work on getting it to be more of encyclopedic value. Bidgee (talk) 12:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not totally. 7 out of about 110 entries are sourced. Djanga 12:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was totally sourced (See my comment). It was in reply to your self saying it's unsourced when really it's partly unsourced. I'm not going to get into an argument over source numbers since again see the last bit of my comment. Bidgee (talk) 12:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me either. I should have said "mostly unsourced". My bad. Djanga 00:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - if it was only a list of current stores and where to find them, then I'd be doubtful. But this is an attempt to develop a complete list, including defunct stores, and given the importance of Myers in Australia, it's thus more than a (current) directory and can potentially be of interest. - Bilby (talk) 13:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually reading WP:NOT#DIR, this is a good list. In the nomination, WP:NOT#DIR is cited but unread, and mentioned emptily and flagrantly. Please also check WP:LISTS. List is perfectly good article. List of current stores would also be a perfectly good article. --Mr Accountable (talk) 13:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, an independent reliable source exists readily - an organisation called BOMA which later became the Property Council of Australia publishes a detailed work every 2 years for each state and territory with details on Australian shopping centres and redevelopments. The only problem is getting hold of it - I have ready access to the WA one, but none of the other states. Orderinchaos 00:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see we do not list individual stores at Macy's. Nor should we. The proper place for this is the company's website, which can do a better job of it. I doubt very much if more than a few of these would be individually notable. DGG (talk) 14:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete WP:NOT#DIR a resource for conducting business the list isnt Myre stores, its a list of Shopping Centres in which Myers are a tennant, Myers is nothing different to Walmart, or other Australian retailers Target, Woolworths, Coles, Big W, Kmart, IGA etc all of which are marque tennents that affect the costs of rent. Maybe a conversion to a template is ok, but really the notable stores should be covered in the prose like WalMart the rest is nothing more than conducting business Gnan garra 14:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. The list of stores can simply be found on their official website (through the external link/s on the Myer Wikipedia article.) --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 16:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a conspicuous offense against WP:NOTDIR. Mangoe (talk) 18:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per consensus at other deletion discussions such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bloomingdale's locations, we should never have lists of stores in articles. Stores are opening and closing all the time, and a list would be impossible to maintain. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would the closing admin please realize that store lists have been long since removed from other articles, and a rough consensus among WP:RETAIL members has established that they shouldn't exist (a MOS for store listings was recently speedied). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While other arguments might be viable, maintenance shouldn't be a problem - opening or closing these stores is a pretty big deal, and it should be no harder to maintain than most other lists. It isn't as if there are hundreds of them. :) - Bilby (talk) 07:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I agree with your appraisal of the article, I don't think its wise to say what should never or always appear on Wikipedia. Isn't that what IAR is about? Themfromspace (talk) 18:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG, Arnzy, and the Hammer. Deor (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatant violation of WP:NOT#DIR, as explained by that notorious deletionist DGG. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Djanga 00:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an indiscriminate collection of information designed to be used as a directory. Themfromspace (talk) 00:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How is a clearly defined list like this an indiscriminate collection of information? Nick-D (talk) 06:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While WP:NOT#DIR is a quite valid reason for the proposed deletion along with some consensus in prior/related discussions, I must go with the support to retain the entry. There is a decent attempt being made here to develop a complete list which can be factually sourced and cited with some work (as noted by OIC), plus such an article could also act as an enabling reference for articles on notable shopping centres where Myer is a tenant and vica-versa. Further, the comparison by TPH of Myer to Bloomingdales is like comparing chalk and cheese. Myer doesn't operate on their scale, so suggesting this list wouldn't be as hard to maintain let alone have a large enough frequency of changes to make it unmanageable doesn't hold true. Thewinchester ^(talk) 01:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe an actual citation of WP:NOT#DIR would be in order. In actually reading these guidelines, there is nothing to suggest the article is deletable, and much to suggest that it is keepable. --Mr Accountable (talk) 09:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if it was intended to be a directory it wouldn't include the closed stores. Brownsnout spookfish (talk) 13:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonelygirl16 (talk • contribs) 12:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DIR lacks encyclopedic value. Information about closed stores would make an appropriate section in Myer.--Rtphokie (talk) 13:30, 27 February 2009 (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.