Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shoplet

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 Delete Only two established Wikipedians wished to keep this article, one of them weakly so. The other keep comments -- including a duplicate by an SPA -- are evidence of an effort to promote this company through Wikipedia, probably with an underlying conflict-of-interest. As DGG observes, if one were to prune the spammy content from the present draft, little text would remain. All of this evidence comprises a compelling case for deletion. Xoloz 15:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shoplet

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

I originally deleted this on the mixed grounds of no assertion of notability and being very much in the nature of advertising materials, given several of the temporarary, unecyclopedic information that is included. However, following discussion at my talk page, I'm persuaded that more people than the tagger and I should consider the case. I note that the three references all come from the same source. I do not agree with the notion that "Every industry deserves to have a darling and a hero" in some way gives a right to an article. I believe that there are serious conflicts of interests in the authorship also, given the nature of the message on my talk page. Splash - tk 21:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and rewrite - sufficient references available Addhoc 22:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Are you going to do that, or are we wanting to hold to an advert? Splash - tk 22:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Week keep but if kept, delete all the spam. CitiCat ^♫ 23:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete there won't be anything left if we remove the advert, and it wont be notable in any event. If one subdivides things sufficiently, any company can be the fastest growing company in its niche. And I'm not sure that "fastest growing" is even notable, as against "largest.": This is a very minor player.DGG (talk) 21:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete; if any sources can be found to make this article non-spam, then it might be worth keeping, but not otherwise. — Coren ^(talk) 22:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and rewrite - Considering they have 5 GSA contracts (5 year long each) and sufficient verifiable references available Officeguru 1:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

  What is a GSA contract, and how does that make them notable? — Coren ^(talk) 19:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

  A General Services Administration contract, that is a supply contract to the US Government. Addhoc 20:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

  Hm. I think consensus has already been pretty much established that notable customers does not make a business notable; but arguably long-term contracts to supply a major government do make one a "major player" as it were. I still think this is a case for deleting, and even if kept the article desperately needs to be rewritten, but that does bring the topic closer to notability, IMO. — Coren ^(talk) 21:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and rewrite Notability of a company should not be voted by us but by the industry that the company is part of. A good vote of condfidence is by publications of the industry. Clearly, this company has been reconginized 4 years in a row by OPI, the one and only magazine to offer coverage on this space. There is more than enough verifiable links to this publictions on the copmany. If you check copmete.com on this company you find that they get far more traffic than WB Mason, for example. Officeguru 02:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Again – thank you for your efforts with regard to Shoplet.com. The feedback from those other than yourself and the tagger show a sentiment for the inclusion of a Shoplet.com article upon an appropriate rewrite. There is enough notability and industry references to validate Shoplet.com. Below is a proposed rewrite that conforms to other approved articles for similarly situated parties to that of Shoplet.com. It is requested that this rewrite be approved and that an article for Shoplet.com be authorized.

Proposed Rewrite:

Shoplet.com is an on-line e-market place whose core competency is the sale of office and office related products, and competes against the large brick and mortar retailers such as Staples, Office Max, and WB Mason. Shoplet.com was launched in 1994, and maintains its corporate offices in Silicon Alley, New York. Since its inception, Shoplet.com has broadened its product offering to cover over 200,000 products covering office supplies, office furniture, ink and toner supplies, paper supplies and printing services. In March 2004, Shoplet.com expanded its operations to include servicing the public sector when it received its first Federal GSA supply contract. Today Shoplet.com is the holder of 5 Federal GSA supply contracts (GS-35F-0736P (70 Information Technology); GS-07F-0091T (84 Surveillance Systems); GS-02F-0141P (75 Office Products); GS-07F-5601R (73 Cleaning & Maintenance Products); and GS-28F-0015T (71 Furniture)). Shoplet.com currently serves the entire United States and Puerto Rico though its web of approximately 140 distribution and fulfillment facilities strategically located nation wide. Shoplet.com’s distribution and service network encompasses an operation of 120 people. OPI, the office products industry publication, named Shoplet.com as the emerging office supply store of the year and fastest growing company in its sector in 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006. Shoplet.com is also a premier benefactor and sponsor of the City of Hope Foundation whose mission is the prevention and cure of cancer and other life threatening diseases. This affiliation and philanthropic effort is due in large part to Shoplet.com’s founder and CEO, Tony Ellison, a former Goldman Sachs investment banker. Nymonsoon 13:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No reliable, verifiable secondary sources to establish notability. Argument of notability in niche publications is not convincing, as no matter how niche they are, they must be verified. A single source is not sufficient. WP:CORP states clearly A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Furthermore, the rewrite is worse. Unverified claims, in advertspeak, are made: Shoplet.com currently serves the entire United States and Puerto Rico though its web of approximately 140 distribution and fulfillment facilities strategically located nation wide. "web"? "strategically located"? What is wikipedia now, prweb.com? Thanks!--Cerejota 00:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom and Cerejota.Clearly fails WP:CorpHarlowraman 07:03, 25 August 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.