Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bluestockings (bookstore)

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bluestockings (bookstore)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NCORP not passing. WP:SIRS in sources that can also meet broad audience coverage not met. Graywalls (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 18:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The current article is not very good, but there is definitely sufficient and in-depth coverage in independent sources to meet WP:NCORP. A Google search yielded articles in TimeOut, New York Times, Bowery Boogie, Atlas Obscura, AMYNY, Literary Hub, Bookstr, and The Observer. Marquardtika (talk) 18:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll expand on it more later, but while that is in NYT, it's in a section that won't pass WP:SIRS, because it's a neighborhood related column Many of the other sources are dependent secondary, trivial, or fails audience coverage breadth. Graywalls (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. There are multiple hits in the NYT, FWIW. This article says "a version of this article appears in print on June 6, 1999, Section 14, Page 7 of the National edition." Marquardtika (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to the sources mentioned above, there are the following: [1], [2], [3], [4] (academic book published by NYU Press), [5] (article in academic journal), [6] (first page of an academic book). Additionally, I fail to see why an bylined article in the New York Times, albeit in a neighborhood column, is not acceptable as a source. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found above. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per extensive coverage mentioned. While it's not necessary for here, worth noting WP:BIAS and that this bookstore is one of eight feminist book stores in all of North America. Shushugah (talk) 20:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources listed above are more than enough to establish wiki-notability, and there are more available (e.g., [7]). XOR'easter (talk) 21:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per extensive coverage mentioned. Agreed, the sources listed in editor searches are sufficient for notability. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there is adequate coverage beyond a mere neighborhood business page. This bookstore is known nationally. Montanabw^(talk) 17:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep, withdrawal recommended. Plenty of sources. Dumping a bunch more into the article now. czar 03:25, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There's definitely enough news coverage of the bookstore to establish notability. Wingedserif (talk) 13:14, 13 September 2020 (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.