Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julian Scott Department Store

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 merge to Savoyard Centre. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 16:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Scott Department Store[edit]

[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)

Absolutely zero sourcing found other than a single passing mention in Crain's Detroit Business. Deprodded without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Looks like a pretty notable building, if nothing else. Deprodded without comment. Really? -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp: How is it notable? Because you say so? I combed the Internet and found zero coverage. Did you find something I missed? The store wasn't even open for a full year. "It's notable because it's notable" is not a valid argument. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I said the building appeared to be notable. Take a look at it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERITED. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERITED is not in the slightest bit relevant to this discussion. The store itself may not be notable, but the building it's in appears to be. ~~Given that building does not have an article yet, the article should be kept as one about the building.~~ -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Savoyard Centre. And my instinct was correct, the building is indeed an historic one. It's listed on the National Register of Historic Places and we do have an article on it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, tentatively. Per Necrothesp, looking at the building, using Google streetview, yes, the building, at least, is notable. Designed by McKim, Meade and White tells us that already. Perhaps it is individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and/or it is a contributing building in one of Detroit's historic districts. Surely there have been other businesses there, too, which can be mentioned. Article focus can change. And/or maybe someone with better lit. search tools than i have can find more about this business in particular. --Doncram (talk) 01:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How about searching on "Deron Washington" Detroit -basketball, or "Julian Scott" Detroit, instead of requiring the whole four-word phrase, exactly? For example "Upscale store's closure mirrors Detroit's struggle" calls it "their Julian Scott store" and similarly. And expanding the article to be about more of this retailer/entrepreneur's experiences ([1] for one, [2] is another, which happens to use "Julian Scott Luxury Department Store" term instead) is another possibility. --Doncram (talk) 01:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: I did try that, and still found nothing. The Detroit Free Press is on newspapers.com, and yet I found only passing mentions ("X bought Y from Julian Scott, Detroit"). None of the sources you linked is a reliable third party source whatsoever. You're basing your opinion entirely on "perhaps this" and "maybe that". How about something concrete instead of just pulling vague possibilities out of your ass? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What, because I found some sources when you said there were "absolutely zero", you start with verbal abuse, obscenity? I don't know you, you may be foul-mouthed generally and not notice it, but I find the obscenity offensive and I don't respect the strategy. --Doncram (talk) 02:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

some editors appear to use it to stifle debate, disappointing.... Coolabahapple (talk) 04:32, 18 April 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.