Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Book City (Canada)

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. Sandstein 14:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Book City (Canada)[edit]

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

The article is not notable. see Wikipedia:CORP Rusf10 (talk) 03:21, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Covered in-depth in sources enough to meet CORP. [1] [2][3][4][5] ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While this does indeed have more sourceability than is present in the article as written, companies have the added burden of having to pass WP:AUD — which requires the coverage to expand beyond the strictly local — before they're actually considered notable. But none of the additional sources shown above actually do that — even the one that has the appearance of being from a national news organization, Global News, is from the network's local news bureau in Toronto and not from the national news division, so it's not a source that assists a CORPDEPTH pass. Bearcat (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GNG is met with the sources listed above, whether the ORG SNG is met or not is irrelevant. Jclemens (talk) 07:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In order for a topic to meet the criteria for establishing notability, there must be two references that are published in reliable sources and which are intellectually independent (as per WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Of the 5 references posted above by Patar above, at least two meet these criteria. The torontoist.com article, while relying on some quotes from the owner in relation to the announcement on shutting down, also provides a history of the store with plenty of independent analysis and commentary. This one meets the criteria for establishing notability. In my opinion, this nowtoronto.com reference also meets the criteria. Even though it is full of quotations from various former employees, they are not current employees spouting the latest marketing department-produced soundbite but are voicing their own independent opinions. Finally, I also believe that this thestar.com reference also meets the criteria. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:58, 12 December 2017 (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.