Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former Woolco locations

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 Woolco. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-19 11:47Z

List of former Woolco locations

Do I really have to explain this one? A list of places where a defunct store used to be is hardly notable or encyclopedic. Dylan 06:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Probably unverifiable, and WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. --N Shar 07:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Woolco as of interest to indicate how widespread a chain this was, although in fact a good chunk of this could easily be retitled "List of Wal-Mart locations in Canada" because that's what happened. 23skidoo 13:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if the chain was still operating, this article would be contrary to Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. Agent 86 18:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Woolco and its "$1.44 day" were notable when the company operated, and even though the company is defunct, it retains its notability. There's another interesting aspect to the list. When Wal-Mart acquired the Canadian Woolco chain (Woolco stores in the U.S. having previously gone out of business), it closed at least one Woolco store where the workers had voted to join a union. The list of locations is useful for understanding the regional strengths and weaknesses of the American and Canadian chains. --Eastmain 19:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No one is suggesting deletion of Woolco. Just because Woolco may be notable does not make this list encyclopedic. Wal-Mart's actions upon purchasing the company can be succinctly stated in either the Woolco or Wal-mart article. Whether one can draw the conclusions you imply from a simple directory is questionable, and whether or not something is "useful" (like a phone book) does not mean it belongs in an encyclopedia. Agent 86 21:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per wp is not a directory. All this is is a list of locations for the now defunct stores. And it is missing many countries outside of the USA. meshach 20:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fundamental Dan 22:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Woolco, which is a pretty short article. A list of Woolworth stores might be notable, since that company was a real landmark in the 20th century, but Woolco? I see no harm in sticking the list below the Woolco article. Noroton 01:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Woolco. I created the list of former Woolco locations article, and I wouldn't mind if it were merged with the main Woolco article. As Noroton above stated, the Woolco article is rather short. TenPoundHammer 22:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep too long to merge into Woolco article --Caldorwards4 03:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not going to vote a second time, but another idea just came to my mind, and I hope that it will be considered. If the list is merged into the main Woolco article, why not make it a collapsible list like on the page for Dillard's? That would solve the length issue. TenPoundHammer 16:52, 17 February 2007 (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.