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.
Keep The nom's characterization of the sources is highly selective and misleading. What the in-depth reliable sources have to say:
Claire Sykes of the magazine Edplay (an independent magazine in print and online - this article appeared in the print edition) did an in-depth profile of the company in 2019.[2] She states "S.W. Randall is the city’s largest specialty toy store."
Bob Batz in Pittsburgh Post-Gazette[3] said "the store has been a local landmark since 1970". The nom's claim that it "is not a landmark" is funnily enough directly contradicted by a reliable source which is directly asserting the notability of the company. We rarely see these kinds of strong statements of notability from such a high level of reliable sourcing.
Joyce Gannon again in Pittsburgh Post-Gazette[4] wrote a lengthy piece about the store and its history. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette is the largest/leading newspaper in Pittsburgh it is the city equivalent to LA Times, New York Times and Washington Post.
Tim Schooley in Pittsburgh Business Times asserts "SW Randall Toyes & Giftes has become a Pittsburgh tradition", another strong assertion of notability from a reliable source.
Notability is what sets a topic apart from its peers, there are many toy stores, why is this one special (notable)? Audrey Guskey, an associate professor of marketing at Duquesne University, noted how different this store is from others and "To find a store like this that’s thriving is truly a gift to the local community" (same Business Times link, emphases added).
Keep per WP:HEY. The first AfD, which closed less than 24 hours before this one opened, was withdrawn by Meatsgains with the comment, "Woah! This article has improved tenfold. I will withdraw my nomination. Great work folks." Levivich's nomination saying that "this is just a toy store in Pittsburgh" sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The sources provided show that this is a well-known and popular store. For example, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article isn't "churnalism", it's a reliable source spotlighting a prominent local store. The article has been greatly improved with many references, and deserves to stand. -- Toughpigs (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I took part in improving the article and adding RSs to reveal the history of the company. Green C has done a great job of revealing misleading characterizations of the RS by the nominator. The nomination is vexatious WP:DELAFD: Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome.. The AfD was an overwhelming keep a WP:HEY candidate and it was nominated for DYK. FYI: This is a second nomination and this AfD should reflect that. Here is the first. Lightburst (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep for reasons already decided at the first AFD. YGBSM! This is just serial disruption, akin to WP:Vandalism. Indeed, this nominator User:Levivich chose not to participate in the last AFD. He slept in the weeds and now uses an ambush. Instead he wants a do-over.
The alleged sock made one edit amounting to a short paragraph. Essentially, this is an argumentum ad hominem and is irrelevant. There is no "guilt by association" recognized in Wikipedia. And there is nothing other than coincidental editing of the same article; and no proof of anything beyond that.
KEEP based on the massive improvements made to this article. That's what I said last time, and its only been a very short period of time, so nothing has changed. I learned recently you can ask someone to reopen an AFD that closed in KEEP if you want to arguing the results. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incineroar. DreamFocus03:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not that I think it has any chance to be deleted at this point with all the keep votes, but I'm voting delete in light of GreenC transparently extreme hyperbolic reason for voting keep that goes against WP:GNG in pretty much every way a vote can and plus I semi agree with the original nominator about its dubious notability. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:25, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Calling the sources "extreme hyperbolic" sounds a bit.. hyperbolic. The sources themselves are directly asserting notability. This is why GNG says "Significant coverage". What is "Significant"? Some people believe it's length, long articles, but that's not what it means. It means significant enough to demonstrate notability. It could be a single sentence in the New York Times (eg. "The person was the most important scientist in their field"). That alone, a single sentence, is significant coverage. Which is exactly what we have here: the store is "a Pittsburgh landmark". Another source says it is "a Pittsburgh tradition". These are direct assertions of notability, it is only hyperbole if you are personally disagreeing with the sources. But that goes against GNG, which says we look at what the sources say not what we personally believe. -- GreenC14:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete OK, so it is a well-known toy store in the Pittsburgh area; but looking for non-local sources, one of them (Hoodline) actually isn't, and the rest are mostly travel guides about Pittsburgh. I'm really not seeing the notability here. Mangoe (talk) 03:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete This seems like a nice little store that is a community fixture to people living in Pittsburgh. But the coverage is almost entirely local (Pittsburgh newspapers and travel guides), which is insufficient to prove encyclopedic notability. Most long-standing small businesses get some coverage in local newspapers - I just searched for my favourite pizza joint on Google News and found 5 reasonably detailed articles. But we don't have articles about every pizza place, mom and pop store, or local fundraiser, because we are a global encyclopedia, and these topics are not of interest to anyone outside of a small area.
Looking at the non-local sources, Edplay is a trade magazine that publishes native advertising [5], and the article is an interview with no independent analysis, which is not held to be a GNG supporting source per WP:INTERVIEW. The entirety of the coverage in the WSJ article is: "People come in and are open to suggestions," said Jack Cohen, owner of S.W. Randall Toyes & Giftes Inc., a chain of four stores in Pittsburgh that saw strong sales of train sets, dollhouses, stuffed animals and rocking horses. - clearly a trivial mention. The main claim to notability is that it is the largest and oldest toy store in Pittsburgh and that it has been described as a "landmark" or similar in local newspapers, and while that is probably enough to pass A7, it is not enough to pass GNG in the absence of solid sourcing. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But this does not give proper weight to WP:GNG: significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The word "significant" is important. Because the sources, while mainly local, are making direct assertions of notability ("the store has been a local landmark", "Pittsburgh tradition"). It's not merely coverage. Significance runs along a spectrum. One might still prefer to have coverage in sources outside Pittsburgh, but this is arbitrary when we have top-tier sources asserting it is a notable store over a length of time. Pittsburgh is one of the largest cities in the USA, and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette is a Pulitzer-Prize winning paper (2019 last) with national recognition. -- GreenC17:46, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pittsburgh is not one of the largest cities in the US. It has a population of like 300,000 (2.5M in the metro area). It’s 66th according to our article. And those Post-Gazette pieces are still advertorialchurnalisminterviews. You can find those kinds of stories printed about every local business in every local paper across the USA. Walk into any pizza shop and they’ll have an article on the wall from their local paper talking about how they’re a "local tradition" or "landmark eatery" and so forth. Levivich[dubious – discuss]17:52, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Churnalism means something a Putlizer Prize winning paper we don't associate, the standard of proof is higher than gut feeling - anyway it's a pejorative term (as churnalism says) the same as IDONTLIKEIT. The store is located around and serves the metro area. 2.5M is a big metro area by any measure. DC has about 600,000 people is that also a small place? No because if you include the metro it is much bigger, most people moved out of the city into the burbs and it has become one large place. This sort of hair splitting and pedantics is typical of this afd, it is a sign of how marginal the delete case is. -- GreenC18:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's also not true. Pulitzer-prize-winning news outlets also engage in churnalism. Everybody does it–I mean, literally, studies have been done. [6][7][8][9]. Washington, DC has 700k in the city and a metro pop of almost 7 million, and it's still a small city – 20th in the US. This store's lack of notability is evidenced by the fact that nobody outside of Pittsburgh is talking about this store, and nobody in Pittsburgh is talking about this store, either, except that the local paper interviewed the owner a couple of times for fluff pieces in its local business and neighborhoods sections. The applicable guideline, WP:NCORP, is explicit about this in the section WP:AUD: On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary. Also, WP:ORGIND talks about trade journals and interviews. Some of these sources fail WP:ORGDEPTH for being trivial, or WP:PRODUCTREV because they're product reviews (the product being the store). Finally, the article fails WP:MULTSOURCES because two interviews in the same publication (Post Gazette) counts as one source (they're not independent of each other, as required). This article just doesn't pass NCORP. Levivich[dubious – discuss]18:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The argument "Everyone does churnalism" could be used for every news source on every topic. I believe that devalues the concept of "churnalism" to the point where it's not a useful term anymore. I would want to see a much stronger consensus on what "churnalism" means and how to apply it before accepting an argument that says "everyone does it". -- Toughpigs (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Toughpigs, we don't decide whether or not churnalism is a real thing. It's the subject of academic study for pete's sake. Reliable sources decide things, not Wikipedia editors. And it's not an argument against every news source on every topic–it's just an argument against using local newspaper write-ups about local businesses as the exclusive source for an article about a local business. We don't do that, there is global consensus not to do that, and it's documented at WP:AUD and WP:MULTSOURCES, and basically WP:NCORP, and WP:GNG, and WP:NOT. The point is that every business gets written up in its local newspaper, and so that doesn't confer notability, and we are not a directory of every business, just the notable businesses. The question isn't whether people like Pittsburgh or not. It's whether this business is notable, and whether this article topic meets our notability guidelines. Levivich[dubious – discuss]19:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette doesn't call "every local business" a landmark nor treat them with kid gloves, it is an investigative paper with professional journalists and editors. It publishes un-flattering stories about local companies. Simply being a local business does not assure "fawning" coverage. In light of the paper's reputation for reliability and unflattering stories of local companies, the evidence for churnalism is not there. Following your logic, any flattering story of a local company is churnalism ie. it would not be possible for the paper to assert notability except by way of a negative story. We don't do that, it is bias favoring negative stories while ignoring the positives. -- GreenC15:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think your suggestion that those two Post pieces are "investigative journalism" or written by "investigative journalists" is ridiculous. But let’s assume you’re right. That’s still just one source, and NCORP requires at least two. What’s your second? Bizjournals.com? Levivich[dubious – discuss]15:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article passes GNG, NCORP is a higher bar you have chosen and it passes that also. The source you refer to is the Pittsburgh Business Times, bizzjournal is the aggregation site that hosts their content online. Investigative paper is speaking to the reliability of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ie. it sends people out to interview and discover, for editorial fact checking, it is not merely a shop re-hasing content it publishes original stories. We don't and can't know everything about the history of each news story so we look at the reliability of the newspaper as a source. -- GreenC16:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GNG also requires multiple sources. Bizjournals.comowns "Pittsburgh Business Times". That’s just the name of bizjournals in Pittsburgh. The company puts one of those out in 43 cities. It’s just a native advertising platform. If you don’t believe me, search RSN for Bizjournals.com and see what our colleagues have had to say about it. You’re confusing advertorial for journalism. Levivich[dubious – discuss]16:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are continuing to make disparaging claims without evidence, this time "native advertising". It doesn't add up. First I checked RSN and don't see much conclusive only a few threads with little supporting evidence. According to native advertising the FCC requires some idea we are looking at advertising such as “Sponsored by [brand]” at the bottom. There is nothing in the article to indicate native advertising. Ok so how likely is it they are hiding it? The author Tim Schooly identifies as a Journalist and has been around for a long time. Named journalists have a reputation, is he known for native adverting? Schooly's other work at the Business Times has been picked up by reliable sources [10] which is odd if it is advertising. Schooly has published articles like this that don't look like advertising. The claim of native advertising seems weak. Then I found this statement by Business Journal that confirms they have been doing some native advertising, but only since 2016 (recall the Business Journal in question is from 2009), and that "We label all native as “sponsored content” – the preferred FTC labelling. We take one of the more conservative approaches in the industry with very clear, prominent and transparent labelling." Rather than a secret conspiracy to hide true motives, the simple explanation is they are a business magazine producing legitimate journalism. -- GreenC18:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GreenC, I'm sorry, but you just keep saying things that are completely wrong, like "Pittsburgh is one of the largest cities in the US" and "NCORP is a higher standard than GNG" and, now, Bizjournals doesn't do native advertising. It is frustrating to discuss something with someone who appears to just be making stuff up.Q: Why does Levivich say Bizjournals.com does native advertising?A: Because Bizjournals.com advertises it[11][12][13].Levivich[dubious – discuss]18:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I feel that many of the !votes are dismissing reliable sources. Yes, they're mostly local news or travel guides, but nothing really convincing has ever been shown to indicate that they're somehow inaccurate or unreliable. This is solid sourcing, which proves the store's notability as a landmark and prominent local business. Naomi.piquette (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I assume he's referring to newspapers.com (subscription required). 269 of the 289 results are from Pittsburgh and a majority of the results are newspaper ads, directory listings and passing mentions. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 13:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
None or few of which seem to be about currently operating businesses (NCORP). This isn’t a historical biography, you have to weed out advertising. Search results alone are meaningless. Levivich[dubious – discuss]15:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No I don’t think I’ve ever argued in an AFD that a topic meets GNG based on how many Newspaper.com hits it has. That argument is more or less the opposite of what GNG requires, which is very, very clear about brief mentions not counting. I’ve seen this argument made before at AFDs but usually it’s from new editors. Levivich[dubious – discuss]15:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This argument is wasting my time. I won't respond any further as I have made my point. I'm going on to making my next Did You Know article which will be based 90% on newspaper clips. You can argue all day if you want. I plan on doing more constructive things like making more Did You Know articles and Good Articles - based on newspaper clips. See ya....--Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict, posting anyways) I think you have both made your point clear and discussion is straying further and further from this article. Probably best to end this thread as it is getting a little personal. Thank you both for bringing up these points though :). Kees08 (Talk)16:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : I see this unique toy store as more than just a store, but a historical landmark of sorts, a half century old, widely noted. No, it's not as notable as the White House, but, aside for meeting WP:NRV, the reasons to keep are now overwhelming. It's discouraging to see the article re-nominated for deletion after it's already been decided that it should stay. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a week in to this Walking dead exercise in resurrecting an unneeded WP:AFD. 13 KEEPs and 4 DELETEs. And a lot of comments, to be sure. Proving conclusively that a lot of valuable editor time has been wasted on tilting at windmills. I recognize that WP:AFDs are not !votes. However, You don't need a weatherman to see which way the wind blows. Hopefully this nominator will internalize this lesson for future use and stop wasting our time on pointless exercises. Time to close.
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.
