Talk:Blockbuster (retailer)

message: , I see you have added back contested material to the article in this edit. This violates WP:DUE, since this is not a significant aspect of Blockbuster the company. When speaking about this topic as a whole, a rental operation at the last Blockbuster on earth holds no significance whatsoever. This can also be seen as WP:PROMOTIONAL in nature, promoting, advertising, or even showcasing the actions of one store. This isn't an article about the store in Bend, Oregon. I advise you undo this edit until there is sufficient consensus to include it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you're still performing your old tricks, and I understand that you think you wear the pants on this article and want to whitewash it to fit with your views of history. I guess if you had it your way the Blockbuster brand would be completely dead, is that right? I seriously bet you to try that stuff on the articles of similar abandoned species like the Spix's macaw, Kihansi spray toad, Hawaiian crow, Black softshell turtle, Barbary lion, Scimitar oryx, and others because When speaking about these species as a whole, habitat and conservation efforts with the last of these creatures on earth holds no significance whatsoever. I would actually agree with you if Blockbuster was in its heyday and one or any franchise-owned location tried doing similar things. But the store in Bend, Oregon IS Blockbuster. Dish certainly isn't doing anything with the Blockbuster brand, besides possibly licensing it out to pop-up locations and nostalgic apparel stores, which aren't receiving any encyclopedia space. Considering all the media attention (secondary sources) the Bend location has achieved over the years, especially since now it is the last remaining store, I'd say that it sure is significant. KevinTheGuy (talk) 03:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Guys. I'm just going to wade in here with some thoughts as a relatively uninvolved editor, who got drawn in when I first tried to offer advice at the Teahouse to . Sadly, this eventually ended in him telling me to 'fuck off'. I felt it necessary to warn them on their now-blanked userpage against inserting uncited content, and again it ended in a 'fuck you, Nick Moyes' post, for which the editor temporarily had their editing rights withdrawn by another administrator for making these personal attacks. So, it's clear to me that passions on this subject have risen to an unnecessarily high level in recent months, and I find that rather a shame and a bit silly. I would like everyone to remain CIVIL, please. That said, I have since had this article on my watchlist, and I spotted KtGuys edit last night and took the time to check the sources. Although I understand 's concerns about WP:UNDUE here, I actually felt the addition was perfectly acceptable, and based on two good WP:RSs. I think the cited edit KtG made does add to the encyclopaedic nature of this article, as it tells the tale of the demise of a once might global chain, and the fact that it had come to the last branch offering overnight accommodation for film devotees is interesting. I would say, however, that I would draw the line at future edits adding details of further AirBnB-type rentals, or other minutiae, and that we don't need to know, specifically, that it will be let out for three separate one-night stays. But as a one off, I think it's fine, and I'm OK with letting that edit remain, albeit trimmed slightly. Hope that's agreeable to all involved? Nick Moyes (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for weighing in, Nick. I still think the Airbnb event lacks long-term, historical significance in the overall picture of Blockbuster's rise and fall, and the recent addition sounds somewhat promotional, but as long as a second set of eyes believes this is acceptable, I'm willing to drop my contention for now. We can always revisit down the road if needed. You have my support for trimming the fluff down, thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: And just to add, these are not secondary sources. Like most breaking news reports, these are primary sources that do little more than simply report that the event occurred. Primary isn't bad, but these particular examples fall into the category of WP:RECENTISM when looking for justification of historical significance, and until the event is embraced, covered, and/or analyzed by secondary sources (preferably scholarly, academic sources), its long-term significance remains questionable. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

text: The changes you've been trying to make (diff1, diff2) are unsourced. I'm not seeing any support for "numerous promotional stunts" in the cited sources. A search for one also came up empty. If you have a source or two that support this, please add them if you intend to make this claim. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airbnb rental 

message: Since the store in Bend, Oregon was detailed with multiple references in the lede of the article, and then discussed in the body of the article repeating some of the same references, I removed the repeated info from the lede, thinking details in the body of the article were sufficient.  My edit was reverted.  Counting the photo caption, the information about the Bend, Oregon store is repeated 3 times in the article.  Is this necessary and appropriate?  (Note also the statement in the New Zealand section of the article about the Bend, Oregon store.) -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Redundancy: Bend Oregon store

message: the page came back up sometime last night. we should be on the lookout for any noteworthy news sources 64.64.138.142 (talk) 20:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this work? https://www.cbsnews.com/news/blockbuster-website-reactived-comeback-is-video-rental-company-returning-after-being-bought/ TAPwiki (talk) 15:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blockbuster.com back up as of 3/23/2023