Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pandemonium Books and Games
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 of the debate was delete. W.marsh 15:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pandemonium Books and Games[edit]
- Delete: Non-notable book store that sounds like about two dozen book stores in my area alone. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong object. A prominent and influential retailer in a specialty market; the current name/incarnation of one of the earliest specialty retailers in the fantasy/sf/horror market, going back roughly 50 years. Monicasdude 19:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: First off, where are you getting that info? None of that is on the web site as far as I can tell. I see a mention of about 16 years on one page. Second, this is Boston, the oldest city in the nation (don't quote me on that) - 50 years old doesn't even get you a polite nod. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is yet another article in the Cambridge, Massachusetts category that fails to convey the notability of the retailer in question. Wikipedia is not a "city shopping guide"-type listing of stores which have no interest beyond that of the local community. Besides, Harvard Square already has such a listing in an acceptable format, and any information which is truly unique or interesting can be included with the respective item in the section on The Garage. --Kinu 19:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, advertising and nonnotable--unless good verifiable convincing evidence of notability is provided prior to expiration of VfD. The way things are going, any independent bookseller might soon be notable, but we're not there yet, and Ticknor and Fields (the Old Corner Bookstore) this ain't. FWIW the Pandemonium website has been indexed by archive.org's wayback machine as far back to 2001. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Continuing, with a reality check: a search of a database of the Boston Globe and Boston Herald for about the last twenty years for exact phrase "Pandemonium Books" gives ten hits, none of which are articles about the bookstore or mention it other than in passing, in lists of bookstores or retailers. Eight are book signing announcements; one is an article about a locally produced magazine, "New Genre," with Pandemonium mentioned at the end as one of five retailers selling it; one is in a long list of places selling First Night buttons. Compare 289 (!) hits on "Brattle Book Shop" (a redlink, you'll note). The most recent, "Downtown Crossing is Losing Its Essence," December 1, 2005, p. 6, laments the loss of local institutions but rejoices that "Thankfully, some venerable Downtown Crossing destination establishments still thrive. The jeweler E.B. Horn, the Brattle Book Shop, the newly renovated Paramount Theatre, Lambert's open-air fruit and flower stand, the pinhole camera-sized Bromfield Camera." "Brattle Book Shop" appears six times in headlines; "Brattle Book Shop's Kenneth Gloss to speak in Manchester," "From across America: Offers of Help for the Brattle Book Shop," "Brattle Book Shop Reopens." "WordsWorth books" (in Harvard Square) gets 623 hits, and a quick check suggests that most are about the store, not the poet, and "Kate's Mystery Books" gets 192. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not arguing that it's notable because of its status in the Boston-area market, but its status in the specialty fantasy/science fiction/horror market. It's a regular stop for notable authors on book tours, for example [1]. Here's a reference, from an author's blog, about the store existing, under a different name, in 1980 [2] (It's in the January 23, 2006 entry, just in case something pushes it off the front page). It goes back, probably under other names, even further, although I'd have to dig out some old magazines to find listings in their mail order book ads. It's been mentioned fairly regularly in Locus, the most significant trade magazine in the field. [3] (and that's just pages that have escaped periodic housecleaning). If there really are two dozen bookstores like this in anybody's area, I'd like to move there. Monicasdude 01:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, what happened to "going back roughly 50 years"?! Now it goes back to 1980? Be fair and cross out that 50 years claim above --- sheesh. I was almost quasi-impressed there for a second. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing happened to "going back roughly 50 years"; that's just one of the older web references I've found so far. Web references aren't everything. It's well-known in its field; its activities have been frequently reported by the major trade magazine covering its field; and it hosts a relatively large number of notable-author events, indicating it's viewed as significant (especially for an independent bookstore) by publishers in the field. Hey, what happened to those "two dozen bookstores" in your area? I'm not sure there are two dozen bookstores this notable in Manhattan any more (which is pretty sad, but that's another story . . . .) Monicasdude 02:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost half the hits on this link are for things other than the bookstore. The actual hits are for book signings where about 20-50 other book stores are also listed - and none of them have articles except the standard mega-chains like Barnes & Noble. Dark Delicacies, Mysterious Galaxy, Adventures in Crime and Space... —Wknight94 (talk) 02:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and how about this link? 300 hits. Not great for Google. "Pandemonium" is too common a word to include it alone in Google searches. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Now what's your argument? That an independent bookstore which has hosted scores, probably hundreds of signings by notable authors over the last few years isn't notable enough, and the only bookstores that deserve entries are the "standard mega-chains"? It's treated as a notable enterprise in its specialty field, by relevant publishers and authors, and by the major trade magazine covering its field. And that shows notability under Wikipedia criteria. That Wikipedia covers a particular field badly (as with your reference to possibly notable specialty retailers without articles) is hardly a reason to make its coverage worse. Monicasdude 03:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The links you yourself provided show that dozens of independent bookstores host book signings every day of every week. That means none of them are a notable enterprise even in their own specialty field. I need something to set this apart from what I'm guessing must be thousands of other bookstores. The reason all those other bookstores don't have articles is simple - every article would be the same! Just the name and location would be different. If you'd like to make a list of every such bookstore, that's another story (I think it would get Afd'ed as well...), but don't put the whole Wikipedia world to sleep by acting like each one of them is worth its own article. That would - as one clever guy said recently - turn Wikipedia into the Yellow Pages. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't tell if you're being silly or malicious now. Arguing that a business can't be notable unless it's unique is so plainly contrary to Wikipedia policy that it's either bad faith or completely unreasonable. Let's try the argument out in a different context. "Dozens of actors appear in movies every day of every week. That means none of them are notable, even in their own field." Let's get busy; where do we find the SAG/AFTRA membership lists?! Monicasdude 04:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Huge difference. Every actor has a high degree of uniqueness. Do you think Silence of the Lambs would be unaffected if you swapped Jack Nicholson in for Anthony Hopkins? Of course not. Bookstores are cookie-cutter. Bookstore X is 95% the same as bookstore Y and 97% the same as bookstore Z - and quite often X, Y and Z are all on one stretch of road. How boring would it be if you just copied and pasted the same article from X to Y and then to Z - with only a sentence different? And there was nothing else you could think of to distinguish them? And then you did the same for the other 40 bookstores in the city and then again for the 80 or so more in the rest of the county, etc., etc... Then, you have ---- the Yellow Pages. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't tell if you're being silly or malicious now. Arguing that a business can't be notable unless it's unique is so plainly contrary to Wikipedia policy that it's either bad faith or completely unreasonable. Let's try the argument out in a different context. "Dozens of actors appear in movies every day of every week. That means none of them are notable, even in their own field." Let's get busy; where do we find the SAG/AFTRA membership lists?! Monicasdude 04:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The links you yourself provided show that dozens of independent bookstores host book signings every day of every week. That means none of them are a notable enterprise even in their own specialty field. I need something to set this apart from what I'm guessing must be thousands of other bookstores. The reason all those other bookstores don't have articles is simple - every article would be the same! Just the name and location would be different. If you'd like to make a list of every such bookstore, that's another story (I think it would get Afd'ed as well...), but don't put the whole Wikipedia world to sleep by acting like each one of them is worth its own article. That would - as one clever guy said recently - turn Wikipedia into the Yellow Pages. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Now what's your argument? That an independent bookstore which has hosted scores, probably hundreds of signings by notable authors over the last few years isn't notable enough, and the only bookstores that deserve entries are the "standard mega-chains"? It's treated as a notable enterprise in its specialty field, by relevant publishers and authors, and by the major trade magazine covering its field. And that shows notability under Wikipedia criteria. That Wikipedia covers a particular field badly (as with your reference to possibly notable specialty retailers without articles) is hardly a reason to make its coverage worse. Monicasdude 03:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, what happened to "going back roughly 50 years"?! Now it goes back to 1980? Be fair and cross out that 50 years claim above --- sheesh. I was almost quasi-impressed there for a second. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not arguing that it's notable because of its status in the Boston-area market, but its status in the specialty fantasy/science fiction/horror market. It's a regular stop for notable authors on book tours, for example [1]. Here's a reference, from an author's blog, about the store existing, under a different name, in 1980 [2] (It's in the January 23, 2006 entry, just in case something pushes it off the front page). It goes back, probably under other names, even further, although I'd have to dig out some old magazines to find listings in their mail order book ads. It's been mentioned fairly regularly in Locus, the most significant trade magazine in the field. [3] (and that's just pages that have escaped periodic housecleaning). If there really are two dozen bookstores like this in anybody's area, I'd like to move there. Monicasdude 01:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Every actor has a high degree of uniqueness"? That's ridiculous. You want to take a personal position that bookstores can't be notable, fine, but it's a position a large number of authors disagree with, based on informed experience. Especially in specialty markets. You want Wikipedia to be a tool listing only successful corporate enterprises, fine, hold that opinion. But it's not, and shouldn't be, Wikipedia policy. Monicasdude 19:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure what's ridiculous about that. Every actor has a different list of TV shows or movies or whatever. What is supposedly interesting about this bookstore? Do they have a different set of books? A unique brand of games? Have they made the news for anything except for being the 93rd stop on a book-signing tour for some author I've never heard of? I'm not saying bookstores can't be notable - just that this one isn't. I'm also not saying that only successful ones can be notable - just interesting ones. I figure either you have an affinity for this place because it's nearby - which means you want the article for vanity reasons - or you're a general inclusionist - which means there's no point in me arguing further. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Do they have a different set of books?" Yes, that's pretty much what specialty market retailers carry. Where the standard local bookstore might carry 1-2% of the genre titles in print, and a chain superstore 20-25%, a top-tier specialty market store would aim at carrying 75-90% of the available mass market titles. It would typically carry books from 50-150 small press/specialty publishers that aren't made available through general retail channels. At the market's peak, the top-tier SFFH stores would carry 100-250 independent magazines that didn't have general distribution; that number is smaller now, since many of them were subsidized enterprises that have moved to the web. They're typically run and staffed by people with expertise and influence in the specific field. "Have they made the news for anything except being the 93rd stop on a book-signing tour for some author I've never heard of?" Who really cares? Unless you can accurately claim that you're familiar with virtually all the significant authors in the world, you're just declaring that Wikipedia promotes aggressive ignorance, and that's just bad policy. Monicasdude 23:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure what's ridiculous about that. Every actor has a different list of TV shows or movies or whatever. What is supposedly interesting about this bookstore? Do they have a different set of books? A unique brand of games? Have they made the news for anything except for being the 93rd stop on a book-signing tour for some author I've never heard of? I'm not saying bookstores can't be notable - just that this one isn't. I'm also not saying that only successful ones can be notable - just interesting ones. I figure either you have an affinity for this place because it's nearby - which means you want the article for vanity reasons - or you're a general inclusionist - which means there's no point in me arguing further. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Every actor has a high degree of uniqueness"? That's ridiculous. You want to take a personal position that bookstores can't be notable, fine, but it's a position a large number of authors disagree with, based on informed experience. Especially in specialty markets. You want Wikipedia to be a tool listing only successful corporate enterprises, fine, hold that opinion. But it's not, and shouldn't be, Wikipedia policy. Monicasdude 19:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge a bit into Harvard Square with a note to move it to Central Square in March. This is a rather notable business in its field, but not widely enough covered to merit its own article. Barno 20:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Monicasdude Lyo 00:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's just a shop, there's nothing notable about it outside of Cambridge (although I do love Pandemonium and make a point of going there whenever I stop by Harvard). Perhaps merge it into Harvard Square. Ashibaka tock 02:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per norm. - Mailer Diablo 03:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Mention at Harvard Square is sufficient, but should be unlinked if the AfD ends in deletion.--Isotope23 19:24, 8 February 2006 (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.