User talk:68.239.79.82/Ideas (retailer)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Pakistan which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Pakistan and Pakistan-related topics. For guidelines see WikiProject Pakistan and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

This is 68.239.79.82/Ideas (retailer)'s talk page, where you can send messages and comments to 68.239.79.82/Ideas (retailer).

Contents

[edit] Blatant advertising?

This is a ridiculous tag. The article did show some sign of advertisement language before, which I fixed, but I don't think there is any sense of advertising in the article, much less "blatant" advertising as the tag says. There are only facts; this is why the store was created, this is what it sells, and it currently only has one location so it's notable that I list it. I would like the tagger to inform me what the actual problem is so I may fix it. Afinebalance 19:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that {{db-spam}} (G11 - Blatant advertising) was not the correct WP:CSD category to use for the original tag ... instead, it should have been {{db-inc}} (A7 - Unremarkable company).
I am trying to develop a protocol that advises use of {{db-bio}}, {{db-inc}}, {{db-band}}, and {{db-web}} instead of {{db-spam}} in cases of apparent WP:Vanispamcruftisement, i.e., "self-promotion" or other WP:COI articles ... using a generic WP:Spam label represents a negative POV that is often inappropriate, and using it may cause ill-feelings between editors.
OTOH, some editors will be offended and/or insulted regardless of the tag used ... still, both WP:DBTN and WP:CIVIL obligate editors engaged in WP:NPP and WP:CVU activities to seek the lesser of two Very Hostile alternatives (A7|G11) ... but in their haste, some editors allow their personal POV to be reflected in which one they use for the tag. :-)
Now that this article is under WP:AfD review, the emerging consensus is that the subject lacks sufficient WP:Attribution for its own article, and that it should be merged/redirected to the parent company ... which would have been the same outcome regardless of the tag used to initiate the review ... it just would have softened the initial blow.
I also dropped the ball by not contacting the author with a warning on the 1st when I initially tagged it for CSD ... I did not ping their Talk page until the 9th, to inquire about their lack of participation in the AfD ... my new protocols address that issue as well, because I should have left warning on both the author's Talk page and this Discussion page before I put the tag on the article ... maybe I should have used a {{prod}} initially, to allow the author more time to expand their stub of an article, and to avoid the Bad Karma thereby generated, but that's "spilled milk" now.
Happy Editing! —68.239.79.82 23:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article lacks WP:A to establish WP:N

Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources to establish notability, and the author has not provided any ... without them, this is just original research, which is prohibited by official policy ... a link to the subject's own website is not a reliable source.

As for the language of the {{db-spam}} template, it does not negate the spirit of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G11:

Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group, service, or person and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic.

If you dispute the WP:SPEEDY, then some other editor will probably start the WP:PROD or WP:AFD process ... see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and try to find some independent coverage that establishes notability by Wikipedia standards. —72.75.73.158 (talk · contribs) 20:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Very basic information like what the store sells and where the company is located should be confirmed by the official website without any hassle. I don't think I need to point to an independent source to confirm that the store actually sells what it says it does. It is as fact-driven as possible and is not a blatant attempt at trying to promote. Am I wrong? Refer to Banana Republic's first two paragraphs as an example. Afinebalance 21:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ideas (retailer)

FYI, this article's AfD has been Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached ... I've said all I have to say here on this talk page. —68.239.79.82 13:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I really don't understand what the problem with this article is. It is a major retail venture of one of the world's significant textile mills and is expanding throughout Pakistan and UAE, so I decided to start the article for future expansion. I have looked at many retail outlet articles for examples and none of them cite sources for what the store sells or offers, because it is basic information that is assumed to be correct. Just because certain stores are recognized by most "admins" here and thus don't need sources is not an excuse. All retail articles should be approached equally, and with that in mind, this article is not even close for AfD. Afinebalance 05:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Let's start with "I decided to start the article for future expansion." ... my response is, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball ... the link provided to the subject's website asserts they only have one retail outlet, their "Flagship" store in Karachi ... stories from papers about more branches opening would certainly up the "notable" factor.
The other retail stores don't need sources because they're "recognized" by local admins, but because there is So Much press coverage about them that the facts are easily, independently verified ... we're talking annual revenues in billions of dollars, not millions.
By your logic, if my corner family-owned convenience store had a website, then they are also worthy of a Wikipedia article ... where do you draw the line? WP:Notability says

A topic is notable if it has received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

So far, the only cited source is the subject's own website, which doesn't cut the mustard ... besides, it's not "multiple" sources. —68.239.79.82 06:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
There is generally a problem with gathering English-language sources of Pakistani-related English Wikipedia articles (since most news articles in Pakistan are in Urdu, and online English articles are rarely archived). Still, I've managed to find an English, academic source that documents the importance of the retail venture in PDF format, as well as a picture showing an example of retail expansion in another area of Karachi. Afinebalance 13:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd still don't hear a reason why it deserves an article of its own, because it currently fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) ... my recommendation is that what you have provided be merged into the existing article for the "parent" organization, in this case, Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Limited, and I think that both the admin who rescued it from speedy delete oblivion to list at WP:AFD for further discussion (because there hasn't been any for over a week), and whichever admin closes it, will agree with Merge. —68.239.79.82 20:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of AFD notice by 72.141.227.113

I forgot to log this incident ... at 10:19 on 4 May 2007 72.141.227.113 (talk · contribs) deleted the AfD header from the article with the edit summary (discussion seems to have stopped) ... I caught it and reverted it less than an hour later ... since the User Talk page had never been initialized, I didn't bother creating one with a {{Talkheader}} note that as of this date, neither they nor Afinebalance (talk · contribs) have voiced an opinion at the AfD ... since the AfD has been extended, I thought that I should mention this. —68.239.79.82 (talk · contribs) 12:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)