Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Online sales tricks

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 Merge, with Amazon.com#Controversies and redirect to False advertising. The main point of contention of this discussion was if the article could have a neutral point off view when calling the examples it discusses "tricks". This is especially problematic since the majority of the article deals with a single retailer, which prompted Neon white's description of this article as as a coatrack for criticism of Amazon. Furthermore, all the sources discuss particular examples of controversial sales tactics but do not discuss "online sales tricks" as a general subject. In light of this focus on a single retailer and lack of sources discussing the subject in general, I think a merge is the best option. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Online sales tricks

Seems to be a neologism with an arbitrary set of examples. ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not a neologism since these are common words with a straightforward meaning. And, in any case, if there's a problem with the title, we just move/merge the article to a better title - neologism is never a reason to delete, only to rewrite. As for the examples, I have extended the article somewhat and it is open to other editors to flesh it out further per our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, they are common words with a straighforward meaning. That doesn't make it encyclopedic. Unless reliable sources consider this a unique term of art, it remains simply an arbitrary concept with arbitrary examples. (IE, we don't have an article on "barnyard animals" or "finding a parking spot" or other random collections of concepts). --ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Parking guidance and information for an article about finding a parking spot. Barnyard animals are covered by the List of domesticated animals. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed the point there by some way. The point is that not all phrases are notable. It has to demonstrate it by sourcing. --neon white talk 21:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, phrase book or glossary and so the article title is not significant. The topic of the article is underhand sales techniques used in online selling. The notability of this topic has been established by the sources which explicitly and specfically discuss this topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, some interesting coverage in WP:V/WP:RS secondary sources. Could use some expansion, but has the potential to become an interesting and informative quality article. Cirt (talk) 21:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article seems to me to be a Wikipedia:Coatrack which i doubt can be made to comply with WP:NPOV, this includes the title and lead. Implying that these techniques are 'tricks' is not a neutral pov. There is also no assertion that the term is notable even if terms such as 'Best-Seller Blast' can be sourced. --neon white talk 21:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coatrack? What are the coats? Seems to me that all the naysayers have is a gut feel that the article is not encyclopedic and so are just fishing around for some excuse to delete it. As soon as one bad argument is rebutted, they immediately switch to another one. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:COATRACK for more info, the article claims to be about 'online sales tricks' (a highly POV term in itself) but the majority of the article seems to be an attack on amazon.com based on an editorial piece. This article reads and feels like it was created to promote the highly non-neutral view that that amazon is dishonest rather than adding it the amazon.com article where it would be far more neutral. On top of that there isn't enough to suggest the subject is notable. Writings on a particular example might make those notable but to associate them together under one banner that hasn't been covered in any sources is original research. --neon white talk 15:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination states that the article has an "arbitrary set of examples". Now you say that it is an attack upon Amazon. The argument for deletion is evidently incoherent. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not write the nomination, that post has nothing to do with me. User:ZimZalaBim nominated the article. --neon white talk 15:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per decision in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queen of Bollywood. One of the paragraphs is about promotions which are only a lure, and another one is possibly about misleading advertising. The term is clearly meant to be pejorative, and using the 'Blast' as an example of a trick may be biased, as it implies it is done by sleight of hand whereas it appears to be just an example of Push e-mail. Furthermore, is there such a term as 'Online sales trick', and if so, do we have sufficient reliable sources which clearly set out what this is by giving firm examples? Or was it coined by a journalist or author trying to make good headline? We have an article on Confidence trick and phishing, maybe we should first also try to have articles on sales tricks, sales ploys, sales tactics - second thoughts, no: we already have these concepts with promotions and misleading ads. This article appears to be a synthesis of material where someone has mentioned sales trick and online retailer in the same breath, and would be an invitation for grievances of all people who feel they have been 'had' online. I don't find it the least bit interesting or useful (especially as WP is not a "how to" or "how not to" guide), and I cannot for the life of me see how this is encyclopaedic. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with most of that, what it boils down to is that if these techniques have been deemed illegal than we can say they are illegal but we shouldn't be making moral judgements on them. I don't believe the article can ever be neutral with the current title. In my opinion some of the info could go in an article about online sales tactics, marketing etc. --neon white talk 15:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are not required to be of interest or useful to you. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sure you wouldn't have created it if you didn't think it was interesting, but then people create articles for all sorts of reasons, and not all of them fall within the scope of what WP is - this one being a case in point. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The matter seemed notable rather than interesting. You, yourself are currently working upon an article about a particular noodle shop. I applaud your effort but fail to see why one topic is more or less worthy of inclusion here. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the article references well-known sources, perhaps the content could be moved to a more appropriate article pertaining to questionable business practices. (This is my first AfD discussion, so I guess I qualify as a newbie here.) Gmazeroff (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a sensible suggestion. The convention here is to summarise your recommendation in bold like this: Merge. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The amazon.com example is not a 'sales trick' at all, it's just a bug, if you like, in the way amazon.com counts it's sales, there is no deception at the point of sale and as far as i know amazon.com has never made any claims to the contrary. Herein lays the neutrality problem with having such an article. --neon white talk 15:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The content has little value, as it mostly describes "tricks" ("unethical or deceptive practices" would sound a bit more like an encyclopedia) that are not specific to online shopping. Those that are can be written into online shopping anyway. GregorB (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Amazon.com#Controversies or somewhere else in that article, as it seems to be about the unreliability of Amazon's rankings rather than anything else. Meanwhile have stub-sorted it, to clear it out of Category:Stubs. PamD (talk) 22:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.