Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lefty's

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. Users felt that the article did retain notability in both letter and spirit, after the scope of the nomination was clarified. Lights and freedom, if you have the ability to expand the article fivefold, you could nominate it at WP:DYK if you wish. It'd make a good hook (non-admin closure) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 00:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Lefty's

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Lefty's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

I am nominating my own article for deletion. A user added a comment that this San Francisco store for left-handed people may not be notable enough for an article, because it "meets the letter but not the spirit" of WP:GNG. I would like you to come to a decision. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 17:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 17:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 17:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• Delete.per nom.---✨LazyManiik✨ 12:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as WP:G7, given that nominator is the only substantial contributor to page (other edits are reverted vandalism, AFC creation, and categorizing/tagging). I am placing a tag on the article. eviolite (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I've removed that tag -- it's not clear the author is requesting deletion ("I would like you to come to a decision"). If the author either amends the AfD to make it clear or blanks the article, feel free to reapply the request.----Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
    • @Fabrictramp: Thank you. Eviolite, I don't want it deleted just because I nominated it; I only want it deleted if consensus is that is not notable. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 00:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
    • I see now, thanks for the clarification Fabrictramp and Lights and freedom. In that case I would vote keep as 1843 (award-winning, not a blog, published by The Economist) and CNN Business clearly provide much for GNG, and there are also articles in CityNews Vancouver and SF Weekly (pretty small though). This USA TODAY article references a bunch of products from the store but seems to be almost interview-style and doesn't say much about the store itself, but it may be useful. There are several smaller mentions (and a lot of press releases) as well but here I've just presented the sources that seem useful. eviolite (talk) 00:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

References

• Comment - I'm pretty confused by what's going on here. User:Lights and freedom, do you want this article deleted, or did you just want additional opinions on whether the article meets notability standards? If you do, as the sole substantive contributor to the article, it is eligible for speedy deletion. Otherwise, nominating the article is probably not what you want, since the nominator is assumed to be voting in favor of deletion. That said, the subject looks notable to me: the Economist and CNN coverage meet WP:GNG and are probably sufficient to meet WP:NCORP as well. (Both seem to offer significant coverage: "Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization.") That said, there seem to be a few plausible alternatives to deletion: a merge to Pier 39 seems most plausible to me, but adding to the Culture section of Handedness would be reasonable as well. Suriname0 (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Suriname0: I should not be counted by the closing administrator. I'm not trying to vote one way or the other, just trying to reach a clear decision. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 00:38, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• Keep Only four sources were cited, but two of them are articles entirely about the shop in respected national publications - 1843 (magazine) (a subsidiary of The Economist,) and CNN Money. IMO that pretty much makes them notable right there. And I just added a source, so it's no longer a single-author article and it's not eligible for G7 speedy deletion. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
• Keep, as the cited sources are in depth and reputableJackattack1597 (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
• Keep It appears the nominator does not want this article deleted, and there are two good articles focusing on the subject from CNN and The Economist. Combined with the other sources I feel WP:GNG has been met. Also, despite being about a single shop, the subject is quirky and of interest - how many left-handed shops are out there? NemesisAT (talk) 23:03, 31 October 2021 (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.