Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Golden Boot

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. I will let a move discussion resolve any question of renaming. However there is a clear consensus against deleting. Ad Orientem (talk) 06:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Golden Boot

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Small local business. Routine local coverage only. MB 20:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Historic landmark. Andrew D. (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't be that historic if virtually no coverage exists outside of niche and review sites. More results found were about the football Golden Boot award. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 22:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Association football goes back to 1863. The establishment in question goes back to 1790 and so is more historic. Andrew D. (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dude, that's not the point. The award proved far more notable than the shoe store in searching for viable sources under the exact words "Golden Boot". Adding related keywords like "Maidstone" still produced nothing of interest. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 00:55, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth does a comparison with the football award prove? That is huge - the UK Premier League version alone gets over 700 views a day, never mind the World Cup one. Totally irrelevant argument. Don't confuse whether an article is primary with whether it should be deleted. Johnbod (talk) 13:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Historic means important, significant, or consequential. There is no doubt that this business is old, but that alone does not make it WP:NOTABLE. MB 22:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Rename to Golden Boot (shop). A retail business that can be traced back to 1790 is unusual and hence notable. The football award is far more notable and should be allowed to be the primary use, with the shop being linked via a capnote. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That may be your definition of notable but it is not WP's. Have you found any coverage in RS? MB 17:44, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering as well. Because it is "old = notable". I don't agree. Anatoliatheo (talk) 10:41, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Rename to Golden Boot (shop) per Peterkingiron. There is a lot of press coverage of oldest shops, many much less old than this. If it ever closes down you can bet there will be plenty of stories then. Johnbod (talk) 13:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Rename to Golden Boot (shop) per Peterkingiron. I find it hard to believe that a shop that has existed for that long doesn't have some additional offline sourcing somewhere, even if you can't find it in a google search. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 22:39, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MB: There is a mountain of results in British newspapers from Maidstone, Kent to sift through [1]. There are a ton on newspaper advertisements, but for example halfway down this search page there appears to be an example of news coverage that starts with "Messrs Randall aad Co., of the “Golden Root,” Maidstone, gave exhibition of boot making, •bowing how the work is done their factory the bottom of Gabnel’a-bill. The firm manufacture large quantity of boots, giving employment to several bauds. Besides ..." I can't read the rest as it is paywalled, and it is a bit broken due to automated text reading, but that is the sort of offline coverage that I expect there is plenty of if you want to dig through the search results. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 23:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Insertcleverphrasehere, your search seems to be artificially large because it was matching on any of the words in the search string. I tried with "Golden Boot" (in quotations) in Maidstone, Kent and only had about a dozen hits. They contained a few cases of shoplifting at the store, the death of an owner Mr. Randall, and the boot making exhibition that you mentioned above which seems to me to be the most significant article. But overall, this strikes me as minor routine local coverage. I don't see enough here to get to GNG. MB 02:20, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My point wasn't that all the sources where there, it was that sources exist for old topics in places you wouldn't generally find them. That newspaper archive has some sources, but it won't have nearly close to all of the published accounts of the store. Old places like this are nearly always notable, it just isn't often easy to find the sources. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 02:30, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are saying it may be notable. Fine, but without finding sources that is just a presumption. It also may be there is nothing but the kind of routine minor local coverage like shoplifting. It seems that if just being "old" was really that significant, then there would be more coverage from the past 100 years and we wouldn't have to be guessing about how much coverage there may have been in the 19th century. MB 04:08, 1 July 2018 (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.