Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glassesdirect

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 of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Glassesdirect

Delete as advertisement. Author has made several good-faith attempts to rewrite the article (see discussion here), but still appears to be promoting the site rather than providing encyclopedic information. No apparent assertion notability other than the belief of the owner that "his company has revolutionised the way Britons buy their glasses".

• Changing vote to Keep per edits by Sliggy. Bugwit grunt / scribbles 19:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per WP:CORP and nomination (although I think Bugwit is correct to acknoweldge that the author has tried to edit the article in order that it should conform to WP norms [cf., the common conduct of authors here upon finding their advertising/vanity pages nominated for deletion]; whatever may be the improvements to the article, though, the subject remains non-notable). In view of the commendable editing by Sliggy, I'm changing this vote to weak keep. There is always the temptation, when presented with the fact of the existence of articles on similar companies (notwithstanding suggestions that they are distinguishable from the subject of this article), to suggest that those articles be deleted as well, but, in view of WP:CORP, which appears to reflect a consensus, I think this article and the others to which posters allude below is about a notable company. Joe 19:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Weak Keep the rewrite - which is a big improvement (but still has

crystal ball aspects) Dlyons493 Talk 20:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable per Joe. Ifnord 20:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Retain - this article is very simular to many of the articles found on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:UK_retail_company_stubs. In particluar the company "Littlewoods" has simular content expressing views, such as "However, Littlewoods' home shopping operation continues to be one of the biggest players in the UK market". I would very much like to keep this aricle. Obviously it is not against Wikipedia policies to give details of companies otherwise there wouldn't be the above category. So please could you (rather than delete the article) give me guidance on what I should remove to make it acceptable? I have now removed the quotation Bugwit gave aboveJiff78.
• Delete promotional, unencyclopedic Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• I find it quite strange that this article can be found "promotional & unencyclopdic", when there are 20+ others in the category above that have "very" similar content. I would probably agree with you and say delete myself if these articles were also put up for deletion. Could anyone explain to me the difference between them? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jiff78 (talk • contribs).

• Comment Jiff78, Littlewoods has several assumptions of notability, such as the fact that they have been in business since 1923, and that they have a collection in the National Football Museum, among others. Glassesdirect does not seem to have any assertion of notability. I would agree that the quote you use above could be rewritten so as not to sound promotional, but beyond that, the Littlewoods article is pretty much indisputable. Would it be safe to assume that you have a vested interest in Glassesdirect? --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 22:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Littlewoods was a bad example, take SysWear or Dorothy_Perkins, both these articles (there are many others) seem self promoting to me with little other content. I tried to add notability to my aritcle by giving examples of where Glassesdirect had been in the press (now removed), not just because they have been in the press but because of the reason. My main concern is that my article now, is not that different to the others in the above category, but has been singled out for deletion. I have bought many pairs of glasses from this company and have recently found Wikipedia as a very good resource of information, I wanted to share my cost savings with other people. I am also trying to understand Wikipedia's policies for article writing which currently seem a bit hit & miss.Jiff78

• Keep. I rewrote the article to attempt to meet the corporate notability guideline (which specifically includes national newspaper articles as being acceptable), keeping a neutral point of view and providing verifiable sources. I think it does meet the various criteria now. (But then I would say that, wouldn't I?). Sliggy 23:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Thank you Sliggy, I have a lot to learn when writing articles for Wikipedia, but this experience has given me a good understanding on how not to do it :) Thanks for you time, it is exactly what I wanted to get across Jiff78

• My pleasure, I enjoyed the challenge. Sliggy 00:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

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.