Talk:List of defunct retailers of the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments[edit]

Suggestion for someone who's bored to research and add, Gilmore Deptartment Stores, here's just one of a few thousand articles about them.. http://www.kpl.gov/collections/localhistory/allabout/businesses/GilmoreBros.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.119.195 (talk) 15:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heres another one for you researchers out there. There was a small chain that existed in Massachusetts and Connecticut in the late 80s and early 90s called Sound Playground. TV ads during their biggest sale depicted a guy in a courtroom trying to defend charges of overspending during their "Super Sale.", I myself made a parody of that commercial prior to an audio tape movie I made.LReyome254 (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Montgomery Ward isn't on your list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.227.107 (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

How is this list different than Category:Defunct retail companies of the United States? Tuxide 04:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not by much, I'd say. The word "listcruft" comes to mind... SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm beginning to want to least move it to Wikipedia namespace as a subpage of WP:RETAIL or WP:SHOP. Categories do not list non-existant articles, and I'm thinking an article request list may be useful for a WikiProject. Tuxide 05:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think of that! If you're going to go that route, give it to WP:RETAIL, since this list is about the shops in the centers, rather than about the shopping centers themselves. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list is different and superior because in many cases it explains what happened and when. Kappa 02:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have news for everyone. Gibson's is not defunct. There's a flourishing Gibson's discount store in Kerrville, Yexas - still has the old sign - lights and all! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.140.72.137 (talk) 01:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not rename[edit]

Do not rename this from List of defunct retailers of the United States to list of notable defunct retailers of the United States. Content in wikipedia is already presumed notable so adding that to the title is redundant. Non-notable retailers should be removed from the list. Kappa 02:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Articles[edit]

There was a link for Wickes Furniture which, when clicked, returned to this page via a redirect page. I removed the link for now. An alternative would have been to delete the redirect page, making it a red link.

It may be that other links have a similar problem. SlowJog (talk) 14:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sound Advice — Florida[8], under Electronics, points to a radio show entry.--24.250.206.199 (talk) 06:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion criteria - verifiability[edit]

Per WP:V, let's source the redlinked items, and take a hard look at deleting or moving to Talk the stores/chains which can't be verified online or offline. I suggest two RS, if brief, or one substantial, comprehensive RS. Discuss? --Lexein (talk) 08:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're being a bit too loose. If we require two reliable sources we, in theory anyway, are requiring coverage in independent reliable sources. In essence, then, you're requiring that the chain be notable, with anyone adding or challenging an inclusion having to chase down sources. Far easier, I'd say, would be to require notability as evidenced by the existence of an article. (As a side note, simply requiring two sources would have us include a boatload of minor retailers whose existence was fleeting, but earned a brief mention in local newspapers discussing the decline of the downtown shopping district or mentioning a local shopping street's sidewalk sale.) - SummerPhD (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm only requesting verifiability of existence and of the closure, since this is a list of closed retailers. I don't expect, nor am I requiring that any redlinked store satisfy WP:GNG, since WP:N explicitly makes no demand of notability or list contents.
I also think inclusion should be limited to "retail chains", to avoid the boatload issue. --Lexein (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's a problem: this article is "...defunct retailers..." not "...defunct retail chains...". IMO, we should limit this to notable retailers much as we limit List of people of Korean descent, List of American orchestral flutists and such. The first certainly does not list every person of Korean descent ever mentioned as such in a reliable source (find a notable Korean, look for sources that mention that person's biological children, list them all?). I am mentioned in reliable sources as playing flute in my grade school orchestra but I clearly should not be listed in the second.
There are certainly defunct retailers mentioned in reliable sources that do not belong here. A recent criminal case in my city involved a couple who owned two delis, now closed. Their criminal case has been the subject of minimal coverage -- certainly not enough for their own article. Without a doubt, though, their completely non-notable chain is mentioned as defunct in reliable sources. If this were "...defunct restaurants..." would you want to include these delis while omitting the Empire Diner?
Until we have the inclusion criteria worked out, I think we can agree that unsourced, red links should certainly go, right? - SummerPhD (talk) 02:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I feel no urgency to delete anything, but I do feel it is important to source the content that can be supported by sources. This corresponds to a complete reading of WP:BURDEN, which recommends seeking sources prior to deletion. I've already sourced a few items. Further, there's no deadline.
  2. It's just a non-controversial list, not a BLP, so drastic action is not required. The redlinks weren't even tagged with {{Citation needed}}, for pete's sake. Worse, the inclusion criteria have never been stated, per WP:LIST, so that specification should be created first, then the article conformed to whatever is agreed. There's time; I'd say 3-6 months or more - corresponding to WP:Eventualism.
  3. I'm suggesting that the redlinks be sourced as far as possible, per WP:V. If a retailer (or retail chain) actually meets WP:N, then its article should be stubbed with those sources, rather than just inline citing here. Otherwise, if only WP:V is met, just include the refs here.
  4. Lots of folks have contributed to this list over time, and they all have some idea what should be included here. An RfC may be appropriate. I'm advocating a go-slow approach before deletion because this list touches on economics and urban history, which affected hundreds or thousands of lives in communities throughout the English-speaking world; the least we can do is seek sources. --Lexein (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The entire list has been tagged as "poorly defined, unverified or indiscriminate" for over 4 years. Yes, WP:BURDEN does say "an alternate procedure would be to add a citation needed tag" after saying, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it (although an alternate procedure would be to add a citation needed tag)." And yes, "Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references" Four years is a lot of time. Other editors have objected to tagging all of the redlinks. Here's my plan: Remove redlinks systematically, "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."WP:V They will all remain available through the edit history. Anyone who believes a random selection of retailers that may or may not have existed and are now purportedly defunct is useful to them are free to dig through the edit history to find "Evans", "Henry's", "Judy's", etc. Any I run across that might be sourcable or linkable, I'll look for. The pseudo-information has to go. If we're really going to keep anything and everything anyone adds, we will likely keep numerous jokes, assorted vandalism, small town stores of no particular importance, "mall carts" that existed for one Christmas season, kids' lemonade stands, flea market tables, etc. to such an extent that the "information" is worthless. Those looking for information on urban/suburban/rural history and economics deserve better. That there was or may have been a store named "Judy's" somewhere at some time selling something is beyond trivial. It's meaningless.
This still leave the question of inclusion criteria. - 02:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh, for pete's sake. "It has always been good practice to try to find and cite supporting sources yourself." That's the part of WP:BURDEN I was talking about, and practicing. I have sourced redlinks and claims tagged {{cn}}, primarily in the #Automotive section so far, which has not been oppressively difficult to source. I'm unsure how you can tell if something is unsourceable. I spit on the Jimmy Wales rash declaration that rampant deletion is rational. It isn't. That's why I think beginning to enforce {{cn}} deadlines (say, six months after tag creation) is a workable step going forward. We don't have to make judgment calls about the size of a retailer, if reliable independent broadly-distributed sources provide verification of the retailer's demise. However, insufficiently specific retailer names like your "Judy's" example are more deletable, certainly, since verification, unless provided by the origial editor would be difficult. --Lexein (talk) 06:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By removing all of the red links that we cannot source (without wasting afternoons with research librarians looking for cites for "Judy's"), we can actually get contributors to source their entries. Scenario #1: Editor who knows "Judy's" sees article, "Judy's" is already listed (though not cited), editor leaves, nothing happens. Scenario #2: Editor sees "Judy's" is missing, adds "Judy's"... #2a: ...with a source. #2b: ...without a source, edit is reverted, editor is warned, editor returns with a source.
Again, a list of random, meaningless names (some of which are doubtlessly vandalism/jokes/etc.) is worthless. Yeah, there's no deadline, the list will never be complete, we should try to source, etc. Until we're done with that (several years from now), this article is completely dead. Here's a beginning: [1]. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By my count, that leaves 352. At five minutes a piece, it'll only take 60-some hours to clean this up. Then we can consider the mislinked ones ("The Wall" currently links to the Pink Floyd album), look for poorly sourced ones (a dead link to a blog) and, oh yeah, consider what should be included. Never mind never being done, this will never get started... - SummerPhD (talk) 02:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
352 items seems like a lot, I know. But the work doesn't all fall to you. So I'm pokily making my way through Automotive (using more sources than Google alone, by the way), and I'll start on another section after that. There are lots of editors, and we can go back to a few of the original posting editors to see if they possess newspapers or magazine articles for verification. Remember that WP:V doesn't say that verification has to be easy - quite the contrary. By the way, I disagree with a January 28 deadline for cn dated January 2012. That's a bit too close to slash-and-burn for plausibly verifiable items which simply haven't been verified yet. In my opinion, we should settle on inclusion criteria quickly, and continue sourcing, and not focus on deletion until some time has passed. I personally don't wish to be rushed, and I think that articles in trouble should be given time to be repaired, and not slashed with over-reliance on deletionist rhetoric. I think if other editors see you and I discussing this reasonably, and making improvements through sourcing, then they might also join in. But if they see nothing but a screaming match between an inclusionist(source before deletion) and a deletionist(delete before sourcing), they'll just stay away. --Lexein (talk) 07:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as criteria, I remain convinced that we need something more meaningful than "a reliable source". It is absurdly easy to find completely trivial entries that show up in a reliable source. A store owner dies, the obit mentions hir now closed store. A fire destroys a building... A review of a new restaurant mentions the old restaurant that used to be in the same location... A biography mentions the family store that someone notable briefly worked in as a teenager... Yes, the list will never be complete. That's fine. With such a low bar for inclusion, though, the useful and/or notable entries will be swamped by the cruft. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For example, here's a completely, absurdly trivial defunct retailer (The Last Windup) mentioned in a reliable source. If we use that as an inclusion criteria, this article will soon be tens of thousands of entries long or a completely arbitrary collection from that possible pool. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Record World entry mislinked[edit]

The entry under Music and video stores (records, tapes, books, CDs, DVDs, etc.) for Record World links to the Record World article, which is about Record World magazine. While the magazine is defunct, I don't believe this is the correct linking.

I do remember a Record World retailer, years ago, that operated in at least the greater New York City area. (Their commercials, as I recall, always referred to "Record World, and the record shops at TSS Seedman's". Impressively, they somehow managed to make that mouthful into a memorable jingle!) TSS stood for Times Square Stores, however that article doesn't mention Record World anywhere. Does anyone have an article reference for Record World the NYC metro area store, not the magazine? - FeRD_NYC (talk) 11:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tag spam[edit]

Oh, come on. There's just no need for all those citation needed tags: citations are obviously needed for each redlink, but are not needed for the bluelinks, since the history should be covered in the bluelinked article. The excess tags should be removed. --Lexein (talk) 04:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced - help[edit]

The following may be true, but are unsourced or incompletely sourced. Feel free to move unsourced items to this talk page, develop, and add back to article when fully sourced. --Lexein (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automotive
found only a 1990 Bosch ad listing. Nothing about closure or sale.
nothing found
  • Champion Auto — Minnesota/Midwest; large chain of locally owned auto parts stores; many closed and the few left were bought out by Bumper to Bumper Auto Parts[citation needed]
found only some evidence of existence, such as ads in Popular Mechanics and others, but not of closure:
  • Business Phonebook USA: Volume 1. Omnigraphics Inc. 1997. p. 144.
  • Susan Boyles Martin (1991). "Champion Auto Stores". Worldwide Franchise Directory: Volume 1. Gale Research. p. 35.
Restaurant

Deletion deadline was NOT consensed.[edit]

  • I disagree with, and will revert, deletions which occur where verification is possible. I will not be rushed. I expect other editors to actually, really, try to locate sources for items before deleting them.
  • If my spot checks show that editors are deleting items which I can easily find sources for, I will revert all of that editor's deletions. Example: Ardan Catalog Showroom - that was simply inexcusably deleted.
  • All deleted items which do not seem to be trivially verifiable will be moved to Talk for further work, away from public view, where they can either be improved, or die from neglect. --Lexein (talk) 09:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

::I am sorry you feel that deleting unsourced material must be "consensed". This is simply not the case. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." If I remove anything as unsourced and you restore it, you are given the burden of showing that it is verifiable by citing reliable sources. How quickly am I going to remove unsourced items? Well, that "depends on the material and the overall state of the article". The material is of poor quality, falling under a "keep everything" approach. The overall state of the article is appalling. Due to your concerns, I have been making a cursory check of the items I am removing. If I find anything reliable, I'll add it. If I find the "clothing store" was a department store, I'm killing it (belonging, as it does, at List of defunct department stores of the United States). If I find nothing, I'm removing it as unsourced. If you disagree with deletions, restore them with sources. Do not wholesale revert "all of that editor's deletions".

Finally, please assume good faith. Your edit summaries and talk page comments should focus on content, not editors. For instance, your poster boy for your arguments, "Arden Catalog Showroom". In your opinion, this was "simply inexcusably deleted" (above) and "Easily, massively sourced Ardan catalog showrooms. I simply do not believe a good faith effort was made to find sources."[3] Well, yeah, "Arden Catalog Showroom" is now sourced. However, "Ardan's" was not. I did search for sources ("unsourced, unable to source"), though I did not have too. Whether you believe I tried or tried hard enough for your liking is immaterial. The bottom line is this: It was unsourced, I removed it as such. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit - struckthrough above user's comment as false, and off the point.) I refuse to be misquoted. I said: "Deletion deadline not consensed." The deadline you artificially imposed has no consensus. You are being too zealous in focusing on a narrow set of guidelines which you think permit willful, damaging deletions of non-controversial, easily sourced content. Your rationalizations are just that - the narrow rationalizations of lazy, angry deletionists.
I refuse to be rushed, because we're all volunteers, and no, I do not believe you tried to find sources, when I trivially found them so easily. Knowing that (in WP:BURDEN) "it is a good practice to attempt to find sources," and refusing to try to find those sources, or claiming that "no sources exist", is prima facie false (we can never prove that no sources exist), and bad faith (refusal to cooperate or play well with others), so I've called you out about it. That's the breaks. It's your actions here I'm finding fault with. Otherwise, I'm sure you're a lovely person.
I really think you should back off this article, or slow down, or both. Too many of your actions are not beneficial to this article. My spot checks have shown major faults with your logic and actions. Please mellow out.
When your actions have been beneficial (informative edit summaries), correct actions, I have specifically thanked you.
But when a user submits so many flawed edits, it's too much work to QC every single one. The burden of quality edits is on you. If any editor screws up a lot, I will revert a lot.
I mean, good grief, you jumped in and started screwing around in the Automotive section, as soon as I said I was pokily working on it. What's wrong with that? A lot. It's fucked up.
WP:DISPUTE resolution would appear to be called for here.
--Lexein (talk) 01:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please see your talk page. Striking through my comments is not acceptable. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not need a consensus to say when I will begin doing something that I can do at any time. I can remove any uncited material at any time. I said when I intended to begin removing uncited entries in the automotive section. You seem to feel you have the right to protect the section for a few months while you work on it. I am unfamiliar with any policy or guideline that says this is the case. You do not own this article or any section of it. If you are in the process of actively working on a section at a particular point in time and wish to avoid conflicting edits during that brief period of time, feel free to use the "in use" tag. If you place that tag, though, and have not made an edit in an hour or so, other editors can and will remove it and get back to work.
You've taken great offense to being "misquoted". I did not quote you, so I could not have misquoted you. In any case, you seem to have misquoted me. I cannot seem to find where I "claimed that 'no sources exist'". You may believe that is what I meant. It is not. I have said, "unsourced" meaning an entry is not sourced: no sources are provided. I have said "unable to source" meaning I was not able to find a source for it. While you are free to -- regrettably -- not assume good faith on my part, please limit your discussion on this page to the article and edits to the article. Discuss edits not editors.
You are certainly free to revert "a lot". If, however, you revert an edit without finding fault with that specific edit, you can expect there will be problems. Misunderstanding why I removed all of the department stores is one thing. Assuming I've no idea what I am doing or being reckless is another. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Department stores[edit]

Department stores, while they typically sell a lot of clothing, are not "Clothing, shoes, & specialty stores", they are "Department and discount stores" and belong in that section. As that section directs to List of defunct department stores of the United States, any department or discount stores belong in that article, not this one. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Being clear in the deletion reason in the edit summary helps considerably here. --Lexein (talk) 01:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was clear with these the first time I removed them. You restored them. Please read edit summaries before reverting. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bumper-to-Bumper[edit]

Here's another problem for the "if we have a source, include it" approach: "Bumper-to-Bumper Auto Parts". The current source cites a conversationally toned article from Rapids City, SD and includes an unsourced statement that some stores remain open in Michigan. If that last part is true, this entry is erroneous as the chain is not "defunct". Is this the same chain? It's pretty damned hard to know. The cited article says a store manager told the reporter the chain had been sold and that "fact" is mentioned in passing. A Google search is pretty much useless, as numerous chains and stand-alone stores have hit on this fairly obvious name. IMO, we need to switch to including only notable entries for this list. As I've explained above, there are tens of thousands of retailers who have closed up shop in the U.S. since the late 18th century. To include all of them that are mentioned in a reliable source invites an unwieldy, hopelessly recentist-slanted list including thousands of entries of no importance or utility. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then move it here for further work. That way, it's out of the article, and not presenting unsourced facts in the article. My main point is that somebody noticed that the retailer failed, and in most cases, sources have been found to support that, or merely wikilinking to the correct article provided the leg on which the claim could stand. Slowing down and not rushing around throwing everything out is the best policy for the gradual improvement of this article. --Lexein (talk) 01:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: there is an inclusion criterion stated at the top of the article, namely "started between the 1920s and 1950s have become defunct since the late 1960s". Not bad as criteria go, really. And I still say, Google shouldn't be the sole arbiter of notability. Wikipedia is not a Google database dump. --Lexein (talk) 02:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
--Lexein (talk) 02:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Holy crap. I hadn't noticed those criteria. Wait, let me rephrase that: I hadn't noticed those completely arbitrary, baseless criteria that aren't being adhered to anyway. This article is titled "List of defunct retailers of the United States". The pointless expository sentence at the beginning of the article is not limiting this article to a "List of retailers started between the 1920s and 1950s have become defunct since the late 1960s of the United States". Why would it? Where did these magical dates come from? Have we verified this for any of the retailers listed? No, we haven't. Why? Because it would be an absurd runaround. If you can demonstrate that even 1/3 of the auto parts stores listed existed before 1960, I will print out this article and eat it. Now back to the inclusion criteria. We cannot dream up some random criterion like "started between the 1920s and 1950s" (which, incidentally, means started in the 1930s or 1940s as the 1920s and 1950s are not between themselves). We need criteria based on reliable sources or we end up creating articles like List of fruits that are sometimes used in Jello salad or List of climatologists named Bob. One commonly used limiter is to include only notable, blue linked entries. This allows List of Harvard University people without including the thousands of people who graduate (or work at or attend and drop out of) Harvard. This also allows "List of people from Your City Here" and similar. Note that there are MILLIONS of people "from" New York state and all of them can be cited to various reliable sources. They are, to their respective articles, The Last Windup I cited above.
IMO, we should limit this article in several non-arbitrary ways. First, we need to determine which retailers are notable or notable enough to include. The easiest and -- in my opinion -- best way to do this is to go with blue linked articles.
Next, we need to come up with reasonable ideas as to what a "retailer" is. Seems simple, right? Maybe, maybe not. Certainly, Kmart is a retailer (though not (yet) defunct). How about Amazon.com? No physical location, but probably still a retailer (though Retail initially defines the term to demand a physical location). How about mobile sales from, for example trucks (Good Humor comes to mind). Is a restaurant a "retailer"? How about a utility company? A service provider? A bank? We need some kind of boundry.
"Defunct". Hmm. If a store is sold, is it defunct? Publicly traded companies' ownership changes constantly, literally by the minute, so I'd say no. Does a name change make it defunct? Are Federal Express (FedEx), Esso (Exxon) and United States Steel (USX) "defunct"? I don't think so. How about sold and changed name? If Joes T-Shirts is sold to Bob's T-Shirts and renamed, is it "defunct"? How about a merger: two businesses become one with a new name? How about a business that is sold, keeps its name but gradually becomes a completely different business (Berkshire Hathaway isn't making clothes anymore...)?
"of the United States" If a store closes its retail stores in the U.S., but remains open elsewhere, how is that "defunct"? How about a U.S. corporation that only ever had retail stores outside of the U.S.?
While we're still working on cleaning out the completely unsourced mess (and trying to settle on what kind of sourcing we need...), I'm going to suggest a beginning: we should limit this to retailers, broadly defined, who had retail operations in the U.S. Said retailers are no longer in the retail business or have sold their retail business to another entity which has rebranded or closed the stores. Thoughts? - SummerPhD (talk) 04:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Bumper to Bumper appears to be a distribution network and supplier for independently owned suto parts stores. There organization might be flexible enough so that individual members could join and leave the organization. The network is owned by the Aftermarket Auto|Parts Alliance. [4] and [5] have a summary on what the distributor does. Obviously the distribution network is still active and the owner of single store in South Dakota decided it was just time to leave the auto parts business and sell the store to O'Reilly's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.186.235.6 (talk) 02:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CSK/Checker/Schucks/Kragem/Murray's/etc.[edit]

Per CSK Auto, CSK operated its stores under numerous brand names. CSK acquired numerous chains, rebranded some, kept other names. After O'Reilly purchased CSK, it began rebranding the stores, which the article assures us is "continuing today". So these stores were purchased by CSK and O'Reilly bought a controlling interest and is now, or at least was, renaming the stores. So, if these are defunct, when did that occur?

  • CSK went public (sold itself to the public through a stock offering). Did this make it defunct?
  • CSK buys a chain, but keeps the name. Is it defunct?
  • CSK buys a chain, but changes the name. Is it defunct?
  • O'Reilly buys CSK. Is CSK defunct?
  • O'Reilly begins changing the names. Are those chains defunct now, or only after the name is changed?

This goes back to the question I asked above. When Esso became Exxon, did Esso become defunct? Why or why not?

Clearly, if a corporation or other organization closes all of its stores, that chain is defunct. Mergers and acquisitions are not so clear cut. Thoughts? - SummerPhD (talk) 01:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought about this a bit. Store closures and bankruptcy proceedings are the most reliable indicators, and many of the RS I've found have been of these. Of your offered choices, I think #3 - name-changing - is the clearest secondary pivot point. When a search doesn't produce any current results for a store name, but does produce old results, that's a non-reliable first-look indicator that a chain is defunct. Name changes are usually pretty drastic, implying management changes, which usually result in a change in the customer experience; this is reflected in the sense of a neighborhood, as reported or editorialized in regional or community newspaper reports. Mergers and acquisitions are frequently to gain market share, by replacing a former competitor's product with one's own, and this applies to branding. So IMHO rebranding through M&A makes the old brand defunct.
Brick&mortar stores may close, but a brand may live on as merely a brand name for products it now markets through other retailers. The retailer is still defunct, as it has shifted away from retail to wholesaling, distribution, or marketing. IMHO. --Lexein (talk) 17:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If name changes are the pivot point Federal Express is now defunct, Esso is defunct in the U.S., United States Steel was defunct until 2001, while clothing manufacturer Berkshire Hathaway is not. That's not easy to swallow. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Funny. Of course we're talking only about retailers here, and you know I meant name change after a merger or acquisition, since your Q #3 was about M&A. Your current examples are not retailers. FedEx/Federal Express/FDX grew by acquisition, and so its own renaming ends nothing. Berkshire Hathaway may not be defunct, but its textile division, its former core business, is. Specificity matters, and circumstances alter cases. As far as this list of defunct retailers goes, the disappearance of all identifiable customer-facing vestiges of the former business and its history would seem to qualify as "defunct" from the consumer's viewpoint, but I'll bet there are some retail RS which discuss and pin this down. --Lexein (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware we are discussing retailers. Whether through a merger, acquisition or otherwise, the question of what constitutes a "defunct" retailer remains. I see no way of sourcing the "disappearance of all identifiable customer-facing vestiges...".
Clearly (?), a chain that goes bankrupt and simply closes its stores is defunct. If two chains merge, are the two chains defunct or is it a matter of whether either original name is kept? Why?
IMO, an on-line retailer is a retailer. So Tower Records is not defunct[6], but pets.com is. Currently, this article says Tower is defunct, while pets.com is either not defunct or was not a retailer or something else.
IIRC, Wall to Wall Sound and Video and Listening Booth were independent chains, then purchased by one company and run for a while under the two names. Eventually, the two names were replaced by "The Wall". Then the chain was purchased by Camelot Music and continued under the The Wall name for some time. Then Camelot was purchased, with both chains continuing under the two names for roughly a year before being rebranded f.y.e. At what point, if ever, did the four chains become defunct? Note that the ownership changes were initially invisible to customers and the renamings did not occur at the same time as the ownership changes. Some stores stayed in one location and changed names several times, with no changes in staff (that had anything to do with the name changes). Frankly, it's beginning to sound like we're either going to end up with highly artificial inclusion criteria or will need to split this article up based on bankruptcy vs. merger vs. closing brick and mortar vs. closing brick and mortar in the U.S. vs. whatever else. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because I'd been focusing on the automotive and clothing stores, I was under the impression that this article was primarily about brick&mortar retailers, because online retailers are always called "online retailers" unless their name contains "dot com" or are already universally known to be pure-play online. Without saying "online", the common usage of "retailer" means "physical store" first, and online retailer second, to a very large fraction of Wikipedia readers, I'd wager. So I'd be in favor of having this article focus on defunct brick&mortar retailers, being sure to note if they continue to have an online presence. Isn't there another list of online retailers anyways?
This article serves two purposes: listing defunct retailers, and answering the question "what happened to ___?" We don't have to define "defunct" - the sources do: closed/merged/renamed/not renamed are all possible outcomes. As you have noted, each case is different. And there are differing degrees of defunct-ness. So a Kragy store becomes an Autopuff, and a driver notices and visits this list. We document what the sources say about the acquisition and gradual renaming, and cite. The reader's question "What happened to all the Kragys?" is answered. The stores may have all the same staff and inventory, with only a signage change, but for all intents and purposes, the Kragy is defunct, and the new player in town is Autopuff. In the cases where stores retain their old name, we don't say they're defunct, we just document the change of status, as far as it goes. We should be careful and as specific as the sources let us be.
Again, specificity matters: Tower Records brick & mortar stores are absolutely defunct, though Tower.com is not. We cannot say "Tower Records is not defunct" because it's more complicated than that. Yes, lots of Millenials only know Tower as an online retailer, that's why we have to be very clear.
So although "defunct" is in the title of this list, it actually means "defunct" or "customer-facing status change" or "behind the scenes status change". I think it's ok for this list to be multipurpose, and to indicate corporate transitions as such, without declaring defunct or not. This actual meaning could be clearly listed in the lead paragraph, so that people understand the scope of the list. No need to split the list yet - it doesn't seem unmanageable. --Lexein (talk) 08:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the lack of online retailers in the article, I see no indication this article means anything other than retailers when it says "retailers". What you'd wager is immaterial. If it means brick and mortar retailers, it should say that.
No, we don't have to define "defunct". We do, however, have to have meaningful inclusion criteria that the article makes clear. Otherwise, the article will always be vague. As it now stands, there is no discernable reason why pet.com is excluded.
We cannot say Tower Records is defunct because it isn't defunct. Familiarity with the online retailer without knowing its former brick and mortar incarnation is moot, and likely not limited to a particular demographic. It comes down to is Tower Records "defunct". Including it implies it is.
If the article doesn't mean defunct when it says "defunct", it shouldn't say "defunct". Yes, the specifics need to be spelled out, but the gross meaning should be logical. Words have meanings and we should strive to use words that mean what we mean. So, I guess the question is this: Should this article be limited to defunct retailers or should the limits be something else with the article renamed to match? - SummerPhD (talk) 13:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citations and sources are needed[edit]

Please be sure that all additions to the List of defunct retailers of the United States are verifiable. Any new items added to the article should have inline citations for each claim made, unless the addition is merely a bluelink to an existing article. Additional claims, beyond the mere appearance of a defunct retailer in this list, should be cited.

As a courtesy to editors who may have added many claims previously, before Wikipedia citation policy is what it is today, some of the existing unsourced claims have been tagged [citation needed] to allow some time for sources to be added. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Goody's Family Clothing[edit]

This company closed its doors in 2009 Bankrupt, The name and other intellectual property was bought buy Stage Stores,Houston Texas. The company rebranded their Southern stores to the Goody's name

TPX

Goody's Family Clothing[edit]

This company closed its doors in 2009 Bankrupt, The name and other intellectual property was bought buy Stage Stores,Houston Texas. The company rebranded their Southern stores to the Goody's name

TPX — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.80.120 (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Preface[edit]

The preface to this list needs some serious revisions - it has multiple unsourced statements (i.e., "U.S. retailers were initially an important part of the local community—such as the corner drugstore or the tool store."), and has several unverifiable, qualitative statements ("Some of the largest brands may not have had as much emotional impact on our culture...") that make it read more like a reflection than an encyclopedic introduction. Nisf (talk) 23:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Nisf that the entire preface is much too long and unsourced. A proper preface should not be longer than two or four sentences to summarize what should (and should not) be included in the list to prevent it becoming a catch-all garbage collection. Does any one have a better suggestion for a replacement paragraph? Should we just revert the preface section to edit just before the preface was radically changed in November 2014? (Look at this Diff from November 2014) Unless there are no objections (or have a better worded replacement), I will do just that with in a few days or so. 107.216.165.224 (talk) 00:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with the gist of the previous two posters. The current summary is too much, and contains unsourced info; needs a total rewrite. N2e (talk) 01:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of defunct retailers of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

not notable?[edit]

Are Mattress Barn and Door Gallery notable enough to be on this list? Ssjhowarthisawesome (talk) 23:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion criteria[edit]

We're back where we started. This list, as with all list articles, needs inclusion criteria. While there are details to work out (what is "defunct", is a restaurant a "retailers", is an online store a "retailer", etc.), one of the basic questions is which possible entries to include.

List of people from Bridgeport, Connecticut does not/cannot/should not include every person from Bridgeport, Connecticut. Instead,it is a list of notable people from Bridgeport. Notability is established by the existence of a blue-linked article. Unless your cousin Joe from Bridgeport is notable, he isn't on the list. Sorry Joe.

We also have articles like List of mayors of Ku-ring-gai. The list includes all mayors of Ku-ring-gai because that is a list of limited size, roughly 60 people.

If your cousin Joe became the mayor of Ku-ring-gai, reliable sources would certainly document it. He would belong on that list. Reliable sources probably also exist showing that he is from Bridgeport (his wedding announcement in the local paper, the time he was named Lion's Club Volunteer of the Year, etc.). He does not belong in that article.

(We also have articles with distinct, objective inclusion criteria where the criteria came from reliable sources. We do not have List of purple mushy fruits because we do not have reliable sources discussing such a category. I doubt this variety of inclusion criteria will be relevant here.)

At the moment, this article exists in a netherworld between those two. It is not limited to blue-linked articles. Of 500 or so entries, roughly 150 are red-linked (or would be if anyone tried to link them). It is not a complete list of every retailer that once existed in the United States. Instead, a long discussion in 2012 ended up going nowhere.

For starters, I propose the following: We keep blue-linked, defunct retailers. Red-links should be removed. We can find reliable sources that give the name of the retailer Betsy Ross' third husband once worked for, but that the shop is now defunct is beyond trivial. As for red-links that could be notable, write the article before adding it to this list. Comments? - SummerPhDv2.0 16:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Over two weeks with no responses. I'm going to remove the first batch of red links. - SummerPhDv2.0 17:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with this action. Blue-linking is the general standard for notability on most lists. There may be some exceptions, but this list is not one that would be improved by making exceptions. Herostratus (talk) 19:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, concur. While removing redlinked articles is not the only scope criteria that might be used, it is a reasonable criteria for this article, as there are quite literally millions of current and former retailers in the US, and many of them will have had some mention of them in their local newspaper providing a plausible reliable source for sourcing a black (no link) or redlink.
This approach simply lets interested editors attempt to build an article that comports with the general notability guideline first, and then they can come back here and insert a link. Cheers. N2e (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I note that that there are still some redlinks, but that these have a couple-few refs. That's halfway to having an article, so I think if a redlink has a couple-few refs its OK to keep it here, since there aren't that many. Herostratus (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There certainly are red links in the article. That's my failing. I had started cleaning them out last month, then got distracted by something else. I started back with the clean out today, before your comment.
The problem with "hey, two sources is about halfway to notable" is that it isn't. Two in-depth sources could be a decent stub. Two bare mentions in local papers is trivial. We need objective selection criteria. Blue link vs. red link is objective and absurdly easy to verify. Sorta-halfway-to-notable vs. anything less is neither objective nor easy to verify.
It would be absurdly easy to show that The Suit Corner in Old City, Philadelphia is defunct with dozens of sources. The store existed for years with no real notice. Attempts to revitalize that section of Market Street would generate local coverage invariably mentioning it as part of the blight in the area. The fire that closed it merited mention in the papers as well. When the building was torn down, they found the remains of an 18th century prison under the foundation, generating several more mentions. The Suit Corner was not, however, notable by any reasonable stretch of our guidelines. It isn't here and shouldn't be. Red link vs. blue link keeps it out. - SummerPhDv2.0 23:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of defunct retailers of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated removal of Toys "R" Us[edit]

Can someone fill me in as to why this entry keeps getting removed? Toys "R" Us is indeed defunct in the United States as of 2018. I keep having to revert it's removal.

Hemingray (talk) 02:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A major concern with this page[edit]

I have a major concern with this page. Somebody keeps on adding a list of stores at the top, which are unsorted, and some of which are inaccurate, are already mentioned on the article, or non-existent altogether. This has continued. There is also another thing: The past tense vs. present tense: If the store is gone, it wouldn’t have present tense words: It would say was/were and not is/are. These are two things that I am concerned about with this article. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 22:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What purpose?[edit]

What, exactly, is the purpose of this article? Is it, as the title states, a "List of defunct retailers in the United States"?

If so, it is woefully incomplete. While it is understood that a fully comprehansive list may not be possible, still, there have been retailers in the US since its establishment as a country in 1776, many thousands of which are now defunct.

Or, is the purpose as suggested in the lede: "Across the United States, a large number of local stores and store chains that started between the 1920s and 1950s have become defunct since the late 1960s."?

If so, some explanation of the criterion posed is in order. Why only stores that started between the 1920s and the 1950s? Why not those started in the 1910s or the 1970s? Why only those that have become defunct since the 1960s? What of those which became defunct beofre the 1960s?

I could rattle off a list of dozens of retailers from my hometown in upstate NY which became defunct during my lifetime, and which are not on the list. Every one of these could be verified from advertisements they ran in local newspapers over the years. They could also be verified from archived corporate registers in their state(s) of location. Is THIS what is intended for the article? If so, somebody better get humpin', because you've got a LOT of work to do.

I think a decision needs to be made as to the intended scale of this article. Perhaps some limitations are in order? Or, if the best comprehenisveness is what is desired, than maybe what is really needed are 50 separate articles, one for each state, which this one linking to the states. 'cause if you don't do that, you are going to end up with a list that's 50,000 (or more) items long. 74.95.43.253 (talk) 22:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Few More[edit]

A few stores that IMO should be on the list, but I'll leave appropriately researching and adding them to someone else:

  • The Lerner Shop
  • The Nature Company
  • Natural Wonders
  • The Discovery Channel Store
  • Brookstone
  • Penn Traffic
  • Tandy Leather (trademarks were sold at bankruptcy to The Leather Factory)
  • a craft store chain I can't remember, competed in the Michael's space, name was/included initials, went under in the 90s/00s
  • a whole plethora of camera store chains that went under when digital become popular
  • and, er, Montgomery Wards? Is that really missing?

Worldwalker (talk) 04:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Joseph A. Spiess Department Store in northern Illinois.
Also, Joseph A. Spiess Department Store in northern Illinois. 2601:246:C201:3BE0:B24D:C891:1A04:4247 (talk) 20:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_defunct_retailers_of_the_United_States&oldid=1208228157"