Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StackCommerce (2nd nomination)

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. Weight of the arguments expressed goes to deletion. Both keep !votes run are based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, while the nominator and delete !voters provided policy-based rationales as to why the subject is not notable. Hog Farm _Talk 01:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

StackCommerce[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Promo piece on a non-notable e-commerce company. The sources look plentiful, but they only comprise passing mentions or press release regurgitations; not enough for WP:GNG or WP:CORP notability. (Note, this was previously deleted following AfD, but I don't know how much the content has changed since.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! I'm the one who spun up this page. I modeled it after the BigCommerce and WooCommerce pages, so I feel like this should be left up as those pages are or that all of them should be pulled. I was also planning on making pages for other companies in the e-commerce space, like SnowCommerce, as I've personally found Wikipedia's documentation of the field to be a bit lacking. I'm not opposed to changing any element of the page to make it more subtle for Wikipedia, but find it a bit discouraging that the first page I made was flagged for deletion by you and another user accused me of having a conflict of interest. I want to add to Wikipedia and collaborate with other users here, but right now I'm getting the impression that my contributions aren't welcome. Lder1995 (talk) 13:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Lder1995: sorry that it had to be your first article, but notability is a core requirement, and applies equally whether it's your 1st or 100th one. Don't take any of this personally; it certainly wasn't intended as such (and as for the possible COI, I don't believe anyone accused you; a question was merely asked). Also, the outcome of this discussion is not a foregone conclusion — it could be that the community decides the subject is notable enough, in which case the article will remain. My advice would be to study carefully the notability guideline at WP:GNG, and to add such references to the article as are required to satisfy those. Best, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I came off a terse, that wasn't my intention and I have no ill will towards you or any other editor. After reviewing the notability requirements extensively, I feel like the StackCommerce page meets the requirements, especially considering the amount and kind of content on the similar pages I mentioned earlier. Furthermore, as StackCommerce is named on other pages, such as the one for Sukhinder Singh Cassidy, I feel as though it's appropriate for there to be a StackCommerce page on Wikipedia. Lder1995 (talk) 01:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was delete. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions: 2017-11 ✗ delete

Logs: 2021-04 ✍️ create, 2017-11 ✗ deleted, 2017-03 ✗ G6

As, from my understanding, this page meets notability requirements, my previous arguments to keep it up haven't been refuted, and other users are beginning to edit this page, I genuinely believe it should remain up and vote to keep it as such. Lder1995 (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm sorry Lder1995 but you have not lived up to your burden of proof by providing significant coverage from several independent, reliable source. This [1] is the only source that provides some sort of coverage, but one source is not sufficient WP:SIRS. Regarding the other articles that you cited, WP:OTHERSTUFF notes that this argument is not really helpful in deletion discussion. Finally, I understand that it may be discouraging to have your first article be deleted: however, this is something that happens to many new users and it's part of the experience of learning how to contribute to one of the most ambitious projects in the history of mankind 😊 JBchrch (talk) 17:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the argument that Lder1995 made regarding the similar pages that are in the same space is convincing. Shouldn't these similar companies also be deleted if they are pretty much the same in terms of design and sources? Easier to keep all of them, because I think there's plenty here for a page. SplitTake (talk) 18:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User is a WP:SPA who has made 18 edits. scope_creep^Talk 13:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Since when has a small to medium sized IT shop been notable, ever. They're is million of them. So is an entirely generic category and too stand out as notable, it needs to be very very special. This isn't it. There is not one thing that is notable, for this IT Consultancy. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:DEl4 and WP:DEL14. It is a paid brochure listing. scope_creep^Talk 13:17, 20 April 2021 (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.