Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NetShops

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 was No Consensus. Jreferee t/c 21:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NetShops

NetShops (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article was deleted as an expired prod. The concern was the lack of independent sources and not meeting the guideline WP:CORP. An editor has asked me to undelete the article because the article does mention that the company was rated by Inc. 500 magazine and that it received an award from the Omaha Chamber of Commerce. In my mind, this is still way too thin to ever hope for an article beyond its current stub status. Pascal.Tesson 22:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Netshops is ranked #104 in the 2007 Internet Retailer Top 500 guide of the largest retail web sites in the country, in 2006 they were ranked #120.Internet Retailer Inc. magazine ranked Netshops #154 in 2007 for their Top 500 of The Fastest Growing Private Companies in America, in 2006 it was ranked #13. Ranking #5 in Top Companies in Retail for 2007.Inc. 500 It was also presented with the 2007 Excellence in Business award by the Omaha Chamber of CommerceOmaha Chamber and was voted one of the Best Places to Work in Omaha in 2006Best Places to Work I feel this is a very interesting company and would like to keep adding to it's list of achievments.--Sherrillh 03:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, you don't sound like someone who's particularly objective about this company's success and Wikipedia articles are not places to list a company's achievements. The article is not supposed to be a substitute for the "About us" section of a company's website. Pascal.Tesson 15:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I was simply trying to list the resources for validation of this site for you. The company has it's own About Us page that is quite extensive, I think the Wikipedia page would only scratch the surface. My opinion on this particular company is influenced by the specialty aspect and it's rapid growth, not only within the Omaha area but in the retail realm.--Sherrillh 17:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont 12:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Inc. is a fairly notable publication, and its list of fast-growing companies seems to be pretty prestigious, especially a spot as high as #13. Looks like a company from humble beginnings, though recognized even then, as per the Omaha award, but has grown since then. If more sources can be found, I'd say it's a definite keep. For now, though, moderate keep. GlassCobra 18:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Inc.'s information about it makes me think it meets notability. The article certainly needs work though. — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 23:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment It has so many affiliates I can't determine notability. As for the inclusion in Inc magazine, we are just talking about a list here, aren't we? The same kind of list that ranks 500 companies regularly? Or am I missing that they did a full up article on the company? —Mrand T-C 23:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep I consider Inc's lists reliable. They have a many lists, though, by various characteristics, so I would not consider merely being on one to be notable, but ranked No. 5 in the Top Companies in Retail among the Fastest Growing Companies, yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 10:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete lack of secondary sources suggest that notability to come. --Gavin Collins 10:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable company. Keb25 11:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I work at NetShops. We didn't start the NetShops entry - someone else did awhile back. Once we found it we just added some information to it. If you want it to be fleshed out into an article, we can certainly do that. We will add more historical information about the company and talk about some of our notable acquisitions. We will discuss media mentions and where our CEO has spoken at conferences, all of which would be interesting to people who are in our industry. We do not have that information on our About Us page. The vote for deletion was probably made by a disgruntled former employee or a competitor. Give us the chance to fill out the entry some more and make it more interesting for readers. If someone comes to Wikipedia and types in "netshops," why shouldn't we have an entry for those individuals to peruse? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xbows (talk • contribs) 16:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Well thanks for telling us you work there. As such, you're vote here shouldn't count. Further, NetShops can beef the article up all they want but unless they have accessable, independent sources, ie: hits on the web, it's pointless. As this article reads now, it's like a PR piece from the company. It certainly violates WP:NN and would even more so if the employees came to save it (Independent of the subject per WP:NN). -- ALLSTAR ECHO 11:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: The article that is the subject of this debate has been placed in the Wikipedia Intensive Care Unit to bring it to keep-quality. Lockesdonkey 03:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, because article is being cleaned up by Intensive Care Unit. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Not notable. More promotional than anything. I'm in a list of all kinds of things from Best Neighborhood Yard For July 2007 to Best Dad Ever but I don't feel that would warrant my own article. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 11:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete So many magazine lists, so few notable. Mbisanz 19:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as the article is under active cleanup. So long as verifiable sources exist to document the notability of the subject, WP:NOTE is satisfied. Unfortunately, everything from sources within the company should go - which is part of the cleanup, I believe - unless independent sources can be used for verification of those parts of the article. Where the article is salvageable, as I believe this article to be, deletion should be discouraged. Best, ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:53, 27 September 2007 (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.