Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orr's (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 keep. The discussion below established that there are enough external sources to establish notability for the subject, and link rot was the main cause of the apparent lack of notability. Der yck C. 22:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orr's (department store)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Currently cites only to a blog. A news search reveals a list of hits by one local rag, and, as far as I can tell (they require payment to see the full article), are mainly passing references. Bbb23 (talk) 01:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question to the nominator. When I click Google news archive search at the top of this AFD, it says "About 3,120 results (0.28 seconds)". Make certain when you search you click the "archive" option on Google to get results. Dream Focus 21:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Such a major business should be notable. There should be plenty of material on it in local sources, even if not online. Borock (talk) 02:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ ~~Very Weak Keep~~ Strong Keep - Many sources are paywalled. Despite this, it is apparent the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources, particularly when an article's title directly states the topic's name— along with many of the article summaries repeatedly referring to the topic, clearly denotes significant coverage. WP:GNG doesn't disqualify local news coverage, and the coverage is not necessarily routine in each and every instance. Added to the article:

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've moved these paywalled sources to the talk page for the article, after the provision of the full articles by User:Goodvac (see below), who has had access to them. Most aren't significant coverage that establish topic notability. Some of these may be usable to verify information in the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Changed my !vote above to "Strong Keep," per coverage posted by User:Goodvac below. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sometimes it's unwise to assume significant coverage when you cannot view the entire article. Here are the full texts of the articles listed above: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. And none are significant coverage. Goodvac (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - ~~Changed !vote to very weak keep~~, per this source, which addresses some aspects of the Orr's store, including remnants that remained after the store's closing ORR'S STORE CLEANED IN PREPARATION FOR NEW BUSINESSES. Perhaps other tertiary book sources can be found. Rather than unwise, it can also be considered prudent to preserve content on Wikipedia that is historical in nature. Thanks for providing full articles for the sources I pointed out above. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You are welcome. I agree that it's wise to preserve historical content, so long as sufficient sources exist. It is, however, unwise to assume from Google snippets that articles are significant coverage.
  That article is hardly significant coverage. It provides little information about the store itself.
  - Orr's was a "once thriving business that was a cornerstone in Easton's downtown commercial district".
  - An array of items were left in the store.

That amounts to scanty coverage.
However, since this store was founded in 1950s, there may be offline coverage. I'll perform some more searches in subscription databases. Goodvac (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same reaction to that article ("scanty coverage") as you did. I was going to post a comment but decided not to in favor of others evaluating the material for themselves, but I gotta say you are doing one helluva job illuminating whether the store is sufficiently notable - thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, but as I said above, I'm doing some searches in subscription databases, and I think there may be enough for WP:GNG. I will post my findings shortly. Goodvac (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not wed to any particular outcome, so it doesn't matter to me if the article is kept. I just prefer that the result be well-supported.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My !vote has been changed to "Strong Keep", struck out info above about previous !vote. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is significant coverage in The Morning Call: "Orr's Struggle Worsens with Lost Credit", "Orr's Presence Goes Back To Irish Brothers", "'It Won't Be Downtown' When Orr's Closes Tomorrow", and "A Grand Emporium Owen Rice Opened Mercantile In 1821" (not fully about Orr's). I'm concerned that these are all from one newspaper, The Morning Call, but the depth of coverage and that Orr's dates back to 1868 (offline sources may be more plentiful) prompt me to say keep. Goodvac (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Do the WebCite sources you provided above stay active forever, or do they expire? It would be nice to use these in the article, but if they expire, their addition wouldn't be functional. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, WebCite links will exist forever, so long as WebCite itself doesn't go offline as it has several times in the past. However, the articles I linked to, as well as those you referred to in your initial comment, are available for free online at The Morning Call's site. This is one example. I just used NewsBank because I favored its cleaner format. Goodvac (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was a chain and so we could expand the coverage to other cities besides Easton. Warden (talk) 18:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ample coverage has been found establishing notability. Dream Focus 21:02, 13 January 2012 (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.