Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Getlenses.co.uk

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. Sandstein 06:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getlenses.co.uk[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Spam. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Show evidence? Ironholds (talk) 13:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Covered in multiple, reliable sources. I also found additional articles in the Mail on Sunday, the Independent and the Belfast Telegraph Job Finder. Strong keep. Ironholds (talk) 13:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two of which are identical and don't contain significant coverage about the subject.--Pontificalibus (talk) 13:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete from reading Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) it doesn't sound like the company is really worthy of a separate article. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Aditionally, it does read very much like an advertisement ("A common complaint is that the prices UK high street opticians charge for contact lenses are too high. GetLenses.co.uk attempts to undercut high street opticians by supplying contact lenses at a lower cost." - if that doesn't read like spam then I don't know what would) Coolug (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a single sentence. The Mail article, in addition, is entirely about the company. Ironholds (talk) 18:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not entirely about the company though is it? That source article is about the price differential of contact lenses between online and high-street shops. The article is based on research conducted by Getlenses.co.uk, and so could easily be viewed as a thinly-veiled promotional piece, and unsuitable as a source for the purposes of establishing notability.--Pontificalibus (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

message from Linz[edit]

I am completely new to Wikipedia page making. I took wording which had been accepted on other pages. The spam sentence in question was taken from Glasses Direct (Glasses Direct attempts to undercut bricks and mortar high street opticians by supplying glasses at a lower cost). We are very happy to change what is necessary, get advice from yourselves and ask for help from people you recommend. Please do not delete us, we have high hopes for our page to incorporate more from our investors and we have many articles to upload in due course.

--Linz131313 (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Linz1313[reply]

Hi there, Wikipedia has criteria with regard to whether or not a subject is notable enough for inclusion, the criteria for companies and organisations can be viewed at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Have a read through the guidelines and you should be able to get an idea of what the article should contain to be eligible for inclusion. The most important thing in an article (in my humble opinion) is that information should be backed up by reliable independent sources. Therefore things like a press release from the company itself or something similar aren't really suitable. Deletion discussions are open for at least a week before they are closed, so there's time for you and any other editors who want to get involved to save this article from deletion (and just because I don't think it's strong enough yet doesn't mean that's the consensus). Good luck with the article. Coolug (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

message from Linz[edit]

I have now been asked to add articles/pages for Simon Murdoch, Octopus Investment and all the people involved with Octopus investment. These pages/articles will link to each other so none will be orphans. Also they will add credibility and encyclopedic value to all articles including GetLenses.co.uk. Please be patient with me.

--Linz131313 (talk) 10:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you wait until the conclusion of this deletion discussion before considering creating any more articles. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, before writing articles about your company and employer, you should definately check the notability guidelines to make sure they actually are notable enough as to warrant having their own article. Reading Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view may be of use too. cya Coolug (talk) 13:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linz, welcome to Wikipedia. Do make sure to check the policies pointed by Coolug, since they are the meat of the grind at AfD. You can find the notability guidelines at WP:GNG (general notability), WP:CORP (corporations and organizations), and WP:PEOPLE (individuals). Also, based on your comment, check WP:GARDEN and do note that having one article wouldn't add "credibility" to another article that it is linked to, since Wikipedia itself is not considered a reliable source - patitomr (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promo article. —Lowellian (reply) 01:53, 9 April 2011 (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.