Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shop Direct TV

Add links
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 Delete - fails WP:CORP and no arguments presented other than WP:OTHERSTUFF SmartSE (talk) 13:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shop Direct TV

[edit]
Shop Direct TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable corporation (searches for "shop direct tv" on Google News, News archives, and Books only turn up stuff from before its founding). Was previously speedied as G11; re-creator's argument for keeping appears to be WP:OTHERSTUFF based on his edit summary (to his credit, it is now more neutral). CtP (t • c) 22:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi. Thanks you for your thoughts. I think that it would be odd if not unfair if all the other home shopping networks have pages on Wikipedia but Shop Direct does not. They may not have the funding that the larger networks have behind them to have all the publicity you refer to but that does not make them any less worthy of an article. I've watched Shop Direct for nearly 2 years now as I've been fed-up with mall shopping. They are also a local company that supports our economy. The article may need to be improved but I believe it highly unfair for it to be deleted. I am here if you have any questions. Thank you! Categories (++): (+) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnRogersJacobs (talk • contribs) 22:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC) — JohnRogersJacobs (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Lack of publicity could indeed mean that Shop Direct TV fails the general notability guideline (admittedly, I should have to linked to that in my nomination). Basically, topics must have received enough coverage in reliable sources (books, reputable websites, newspapers, etc.) before they can have their own Wikipedia articles. In addition, topics are assessed for this without regard to the notability of other similar topics (in this case, QVC and other home shopping networks). CtP (t • c) 17:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 07:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 07:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My reaction to the above discussion is that you are saying that an article should only be covered on Wikipedia if it has purchased substantial publicity. Yes, purchased because that is actually how it works. If that is this case, Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia on everything, it is only reporting on the big corporations. I believe the debate around this article puts the entire legitimacy of Wikipedia in discussion. Does Wikipedia exist to give a leg up to the Fortune 500? Does Pepsi deserve an article but Shasta does not because one has substantially more publicity then the other?
And most importantly, is the internet the only source of publicity? How many television stations and trade papers have covered Shop Direct TV? To say that a US cable television network shouldn't be included but all of it's competitors should be makes Wikipedia an e-zine not an unbias encyclopedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.85.4.95 (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC) — 92.5.4.95 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • No, if Shop Direct TV has not made an impact, then we are in fact remaining unbiased by excluding it. Shasta, the example you gave, has an article, but the difference between Shasta's article and Shop Direct TV's article is that Shasta's article is substantiated by independent reliable sources such as this, whereas the SDTV article is not. Wikipedia was never supposed to be an "encyclopedia on everything", just on topics deemed suitable for inclusion (I refer here to WP:IINFO, a policy, and WP:N, a guideline). Your idea that sources should be considered valid even if they are unavailable on the internet is completely true by the reliable sources guideline. If you can provide citations to print or other offline sources, then you could provide a compelling argument for keeping the article. CtP (t • c) 18:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • THe above link provided (thank you) states <<Sources are not required to be available online, >> so if I scan some articles from trade papers, magazines how do I submit them for review? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.85.4.95 (talk) 09:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you very much poster above. I now (think I) understand regarding citing those publications and that is very helpful. I will get started on that now then. I also found an online trade article should I add that right to the main article, here on this page or also using a template like the one mentioned above? Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.85.4.95 (talk)
I am still searching online and moving onto trade publications/print. Expect results soon.
Do you volume of Twitter followers have value at Wikipedia for establishing notoriety? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.85.4.95 (talk) 12:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can find no significant coverage about this company that establishes that it meets Wikipedia's gernal inclusion guidelines, or the more specific guidelines for companies. The reference included in the article to rightview consultancy does not represent significant coverage in a reliable source. I will consider any other sources brought forward. The company is literally been in operation for only one year at this point. I have no objections ot recreation in the future if they grow and gain coverage, but at this point, it really does appear that it is too soon to have an article about this company. -- Whpq (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please re-read, The Company has not been in business for one year. The Company took the on-air name Shop Direct about one year ago. I have begun the work of ordering trade papers for larger publications to cite. Reliable sources wil be provides hortly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.85.4.95 (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did read the article. It states "Shop Direct TV was founded in November 2011..." which makes it one year. Of course, we have no sources so none of the information in the article is verified. -- Whpq (talk) 23:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am not familiar with any article that states that. The article I found from rightview does not state that. It states <<Shop Direct TV Inc. took on the on-air moniker Shop Direct TV late last year in a bid to establish Network identity. >> It does not make reference to the year it was founded. The Wikipedia Article states <<Shop Direct TV was founded in November 2011 by Shop Direct Corporation which began leasing television time from local cable systems in 2007 extensively promoting its own in-house programming and products.>> I believe you may be referring to this unless there is some other article I am missing. The Wikipedia Entry states the Company was founded in 2007. The confusion may be that prior to November 2011 programs were presented by '"Shop Direct Corporation and in 2011 the programming feed became Shop Direct TV but the broadcasting network is nearly 5 years old.
That is something that can/should be clarified in the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.85.4.95 (talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme 23:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Based on this logic, I will compile other pages that have to be deleted like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bran,_Bra%C5%9Fov since the page has been up almost since the founding of Wikipedia and not one single source has been provided all this time. There is no getting around it -- challenging the validity of this article makes Wikipedia little more then a service for those who purchase P.R. or the big boys and in doing so demeans the entire concept of the internet and Wikipedia. This is certainly not why I donated money during two of Wikipedia's appeals. I was told this was a source for UNbiased, full and complete information. Denying part of history because it hasn't paid the press or isn't in articles that appear on the internet means Wikipedia doesn't use the same stringent criteria that a traditional encyclopedia does and is therefore less valuable. Shop Direct TV is in almost as many homes as Shop NBC. Why not ask their affiliate relations to send you modified copies of their coverage agreements with these cable systems. SHOP DIRECT TV has MORE followers on Twitter then Shop NBC seeming to indicate greater public following. It exists as surely as Bran in the link I set above exists yet also lacks the publicity. Other then a simple and in my opinion totally out of context quoting of guidelines no reasonable argument for deletion has been made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.85.24.49 (talk) 13:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC) — 92.85.24.49 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment - You are free to nominate other articles for deletion if they do not meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. However, you should be aware that doing so just to make a point is frowned upon, and you will need to register an account in order to finish nominations to AFD. As for your other comments, they are way off base. The policies and guidelines that Wikipedia use are noted above and have been formed by community consensus. If you believe that they should be changed, you are welcome to propose changes at the Village Pump. I'll also note that the reason for deletion is the lack of coverage in any reliable source, and as such, I doubt any traditional encyclopedia would have included this company either. -- Whpq (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • An article shouldn't necessarily be deleted because it has no sources. WP:NRVE, a section of the notability guideline, explains this: "the absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable". As can be seen in a quick search, the commune of Bran appears to be notable because of the presence of sources like this one (this is the case with the vast majority of settlements). Assuming that you are the same poster as the IP from last week, it has already been explained to you that:
  1. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia on everything;
  2. Offline sources are perfectly acceptable;
  3. A following on Twitter has no bearing on notability;
  4. Remaining truly unbiased requires the exclusion of some topics which have not made an impact. Although it speaks to this concept in terms of article content, WP:UNDUE is relevant here.
In addition, it needs to be made clear that any purchased publicity is discounted when assessing notability, as noted in the general notability guideline. Even if Shop Direct TV had purchased publicity pieces, this would do nothing to make them any more notable. CtP (t • c) 23:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - I think you picked about the worst possible example of an unsourced article as an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument for keeping this article. After 10 minutes of looking and with minimal effort I managed to add three sources to Bran, Braşov - all from reliable sources; books about the subject's place in history rather than the normal tourist rubbish we see being used as references for place articles. It was unsourced because Wikipedia is a work in progress, not because the home town of "Dracula's" Bran Castle is non-notable. Stalwart111 00:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC
  • Response -Yes, I am the same poster as before. I can't help be notice how one of your editors wisely put in a relist for this article but the response immediately to his or her action was Delete That my friend is about as bias as you get. You are telling me about bias but it looks like Shop Direct on the receiving end of it. Though your argument is against Shop Direct's inclusion the context of your comments tends to perfectly support it. Who are you to say the Network hasn't made an impact? A real scholarly approach would be to obtain coverage agreements for the Network, etc to establish it's penetration into the American household. But where your argument is really questionable is about publicity. Everything is paid publicity. How do you think articles end up in trade papers and magazines? You pay a publicist. The publicist in turns spends money, inviting journalists to lunch etc. I can go through Wikipedia and delete just about every article based on the no paid publicity clause. Regarding the location example you state Other then a simple and in my opinion totally out of context quoting of guidelines no reasonable argument for deletion has been made. It is exactly the same thing. Bran is a town. Shop Direct TV is a channel. It seems both lack a lot of web site references or as you put it rubbish by other people who also post their own content online just like Wikipedia. And it seems like that rubbish for travel locations establishes the location has made an impact. I kind of get the feeling that everything be darned, you just don't like another shopping channel having a page on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.85.24.49 (talk) 09:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - Rather than accusing other editors of bad faith, perhaps your time could be spent in sourcing the article? Eight days ago, you stated above that you were working on getting more sources. Since then, not a single source has been presented. -- Whpq (talk) 10:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand your complaint about the relisting. An administrator relisted the discussion to generate more discussion and get more input, and somebody used the opportunity to post their opinion. I don't see what is wrong with this; regardless of the poster's stance, the goal of relisting, generating more input, was achieved. And yes, perhaps "made an impact" was not the best choice of words on my part, but I keep pointing you to the general notability guideline and adequate sources have not been presented. Again, it's all there; just find some sources meeting all those requirements and you'll save the article. That's all I'm trying to get across. "Everything is paid publicity"—no. Take the references for the article Plant, for example. Next, the "rubbish" Stalwart111 refers to is tourism guides and the like, but the references he added to the Bran article are from published books which show that the commune has historical significance. I have no objection to an article on another shopping network if reliable sources show that it meets Wikipedia's notability guideline. This does not appear to be the case with Shop Direct TV. Also, it was you who stated "Other then a simple and in my opinion totally out of context quoting of guidelines no reasonable argument for deletion has been made", making reference to Shop Direct TV; it was not Stalwart111, Whpq, or me making reference to Bran. CtP (t • c) 20:08, 28 November 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shop_Direct_TV&oldid=1082627846"