Talk:Glassesdirect
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on March 23, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
[edit] Still Spam?
The article has been updated since I originally {{prod}}ed it as spamvertisement. The author has made some modifications since the proposed deletion, and made the statement in his edit history "I have hopefully removed copy that would make you think this was a spamvertisement, however I do not see that much difference to the artice - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specsavers". I don't know if the statement was intended to imply that the editor had cleaned the article as much as possible without losing the essence of the article, and it still looked like spam, or if the editor was simply pointing out the fact that the articles were essentially the same, and only this one had been tagged for proposed deletion. Either way, I think both articles exist only to promote their respective businesses, and are spam. I intend to {{prod}} / AfD, both articles relatively soon if modifications are not made to make them look less like advertisments. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 01:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] I was trying to inform users of the rip off prices of the high street
I recently bought a pair of glasses from the afore mentioned company before noticing the article on Specsavers and the other high street opticians on Wikipedia. As I believe users would benefit from knowing they can get huge savings from internet opticians, I thought it would be informative to let them know of an alternative here. I may of inadvertently wrote the article as (what you believe to be) an advertisement, but I was just emulating what the other high-street opticians had done. I also thought by giving details of other companies where users could also receive saving would be sufficient not to become a advertisement.
THIS IS JUST SHAMELESS ADVERTISING OF THE TYPE GLASSES DIRECT SPECIALISES IN!
If you still believe this to be an advertisement I would be happy to write an article detailing cost savings between internet opticians and high street opticians. Would this be more acceptable?
- You are correct in pointing out that my concerns about these articles are "what I believe to be", and are strictly my opinion. However, based on what I have seen happen in Wikipedia, both of these articles would likely be deleted if they were to be moved to Articles for Deletion. If you were to create the alternative article you have proposed, I would recommend that it remain as generic as possible. The article might compare and contrast the differences between online and "conventional" opticians, without specifying invidual businesses on either side of the debate. Personally, I would be less inclined to question the motives of that article, as opposed to the articles as they are written, which seem to exist only to promote specific businesses. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 11:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I have again modified the text to remove any promotional copy and kept to the facts about the business. I also now believe that the copy is very simular to most of the articles found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:UK_retail_company_stubs. To highlight the differences in the on/off line business I will put together a new article.--Jiff78 13:47, 23 March 2006 (GMT)
