Actually it is not. If the shop said Ripley Believe It or Not! then Ripley would be part of the name and this page should be deleted, but the shop said Ripley's Believe It or Not! which means that the shop was founded by a person named Ripley, which means that this page should stay. --Danniesen September 27 2012, 21:17 (Denmark)
We know that the person who founded the museum was named Ripley. That is the point Seth is making, is his named mentioned anywhere other than the name of the museum? The answear, Seth, is no. Delete at will. Dannisen, please think before creating anymore articles. You must have realised that nearly all the articles that you've written have been deleted. Jayden Matthews 19:27, September 27, 2011 (UTC)
[edit conflict:] The name of the museum is Ripley's Believe it or Not!. It's actually registered like that, "Ripley's Believe it or Not!", not Ripley's "Believe it or Not!". There's a difference. The "Ripley's" part is an inherent part of the museum name and, although a reference to Robert Ripley, is not a mention of him (i.e. just because we have articles on Barclays and Ward Lock & Co. doesn't mean we have to have articles on James Barclay, or Ebenezer Ward and George Lock.) -- Seth Cooperowl post! 19:29, September 27, 2011 (UTC)
Not to mention, on a side note, that Robert Ripley never owned the Ripley's Believe it or Not! museum in London (Ripley lived in the late 19th/early 20th century; and the museum was founded in 2008). -- Seth Cooperowl post! 19:40, September 27, 2011 (UTC)
There you have it. Incidently, Dannisen, logging out doesn't make you incognito. Jayden Matthews 19:43, September 27, 2011 (UTC)
The reasons that there is no references to J. Barclay, E. Ward and G. Lock is that these artcles does not say: Barclay's, Ward's and Lock's. If there is no reference to Robert Ripley in the name Ripley's Believe It or Not!, then the shop in real life has no founder in real life, as it says accurately the same. Otherwise it means that Robert Ripley is mentioned in canon. Please think a little bit longer than 3 seconds forward. Am i the only person who knows how the world works. --Danniesen September 27 2011, 21:50 (Denmark)
DO NOT delete other people's comments. Especially not an Administrator's. As Seth pointed out Ripley did not found the museum. It was named after the comic franchise that he owned. Jayden Matthews 19:56, September 27, 2011 (UTC)
What is there to be said about Ollivanders Wand Shop and Borgin and Burkes, then, Danniesen? The reason there is no article on J. Barclay, E. Ward and G. Lock (who even had a more direct influence in the founding of their businesses than R. Ripley) isn't because there is no apostrophe on the name of the business. It's because that "Barclays" or "Ward Lock & Co." is the name of the business; not the name of their founders (no matter the reference to them). -- Seth Cooperowl post! 20:05, September 27, 2011 (UTC)
The fact that the franchise is named after this man in no way justifies having a stub-length article about him. Especially seeing as how the museum itself wasn't founded until a decade after the canocial series of events portrayed in the book. As for the Diagon Alley shop names, I'm not sure we should have articles on them at all. For one thing, the articles are assuming that these people are the current owners of the businesses, rather than the original founders or namesakes. Jayden Matthews 12:41, September 28, 2011 (UTC)
I've created a few articles on individuals with businesses/products/etc. named after them, but I've tried to write them in a way that doesn't conclusively suggest what the individual's relationship to the business/product/etc. is, i.e. "Smith is the wizard or witch who gave their name to Smith's Robe Emporium." That wording leaves open the possibility that the individual isn't the current owner of the business. Any article written like "Smith is the owner of Smith's Robe Emporium," when all that's known is that the individual has something named after them, not that they founded it/invented it/etc., should be changed.
I don't really see an issue with having articles on the namesakes of businesses/products/etc. However, I think there is a stronger case for having articles on namesakes that are fictional characters, not real people. For example, we have an article on the fictional Rubens Winikus of Rubens Winikus and Company Inc., but not on the real Chester Stevens of Chester Stevens Estate Agents. Chester Stevens can be treated as synonymous with his business, as our primary mission is to provide information on the Potter franchise. But Rubens Winikus is a fictional character who exists strictly within the Harry Potter universe, and thus it makes more sense to have an independent article on him than it does for Chester Stevens.
The Ripley's museum chain was founded in the 1950s, so it's not the existence of a Ripley's museum in 1997 that's an anachronism, but the existence of one in London. The Ripley's in London was presumably founded a decade earlier in the Harry Potter universe than it was in reality. But I don't think we can accurately call Robert Ripley the owner of the Ripley's museum chain, or even its founder, since the first museum actually opened a year after he died. ★ Starstuff(Owl me!) 03:40, September 29, 2011 (UTC)
I agree that fictional characters are more deserving of articles than real life individuals, as they are unique to Harry Potter. However, I don't agree with having articles on shop namesakes. Especially in the cases of the examples above. For one thing, we don't know if these namesakes are actually real people, or fictional mascots for the company such as Mr. Muscle, or Betty Bake. As for the museum, neither it nor it's namesake should have articles here. For one thing, the museum cannot exist within the canocial Harry Potter universe. DH: Part 1 takes place in or after 2007, as evidenced by the date on the Equus poster. Jayden Matthews 15:00, September 29, 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.