Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sportsshoes.com

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 no consensus. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sportsshoes.com

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

PROD contested by article creator. This company fails WP:ORG and has not been the subject of significant, independent, reliable coverage. The fact that it was founded by a notable person is irrelevant, as notablity is not inherited. Giant Snowman 12:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – fails to establish significant notability. C 679 12:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Needs secondary sources, I did a cursory search and didn't find anything. --CutOffTies (talk) 14:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I cleaned up the article a bit, but I can't find any sources to enhance it. Doesn't seem to meet WP:ORG. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP: GNG and WP: ORG. Admiral Caius (talk) 15:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I accepted this ~~WP:AFD~~WP:AFC based on the notability established by the following references included in the fledgling article: [1], [2], [3] ~KvnG 18:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng: - the first piece is a profile about the company's owner, the second is from a local paper (although a sizeable one, and one that I use often myself), while the third is routine business news. Nothing that shows significant coverage. Giant Snowman 18:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned below, the first article does have WP:SIGCOV of Sportsshoes.com. Different editors will have different interpretations of the local sources clause of WP:CORP. WP:ROUTINE appears to apply to assessing notability of events. ~KvnG 23:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng: - do you mean AFC? C 679 19:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, corrected ~KvnG 23:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Yorkshire Post article satisfies WP:GNG in my opinion (and specifically passes the "Significant coverage" test). Organisation is carrying out operations significant enough to warrant an article. SFB 20:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sillyfolkboy: - please can you elaborate on how an article on the company's boss gives the company notability? WP:INHERITORG. Giant Snowman 20:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: The second sentence of that criteria explicitly states that topic need not be the primary focus of the source material. The article is as much about the company as the boss. SFB 22:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. The company and its founder have been the subject of lengthy articles. Its a 3 decades old business and while it's not huge, has achieved some significance. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The sources available do not constitute significant, independent, reliable coverage. A Google search for "Sportsshoes.com" does not result in significant coverage. Also, a search in Questia (which contains several important UK newspapers) results in three articles with incidental coverage: for example "The 50 Best Summer Sports Gear" and "Yes, You Really Can Save a Fortune Shopping Online". As a result, the article fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), the applicable guideline, because the company has not "been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." - tucoxn\^talk 23:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep I see nothing significant about this company, but their size and the coverage that is there are just enough to keep it. Can someone please copyedit the "online shoe shop founded in 1982" bit though. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails GNG. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep I am the creator of this page. The London Stock Exchange has just placed them in their database of 1000 companies to inspire britain. Link and text has been added to the page. This establishes notability. Colindiffer (talk) 11:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. The YP piece addresses the company as much as the management. The BL piece refers to the former bricks and mortar store as "iconic". The generic name doesn't aid searches for sources, of which I am sure there are several more for a significant business of this age laying claim to being an early e-tailer. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 14:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I still don't see a solid consensus here, one more week's discussion can't hurt.

@Sillyfolkboy: Relisting debates repeatedly in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended, and while having a deletion notice on a page is not harmful, its presence over several weeks can become disheartening for its editors. Therefore, in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice. Users relisting a debate for a third (or further) time, or relisting a debate with a substantial number of commenters, should write a short explanation (in addition to the template) on why they did not consider the debate sufficient. WP:RELIST#Relisting_discussions (i'm the creator of this article)Colindiffer (talk) 14:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just for reference in future: the ping template works by putting the user name you wish to alert. In this case I assume you want to alert @The Bushranger:, rather than me. (My own interpretation is that this is a classic "no consensus" result, as general notability is being given as the main reason both for and against deletion). SFB 19:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sillyfolkboy: Yes sorry, ping'd the wrong person was meant to be for @The Bushranger: . Apologies again Colindiffer (talk)

It should be noted that I am quite aware of the "relisting for a third+ time" procedures, which is why I listed a comment in the relisting note. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is definitely not a solid consensus here. 12 editors have weighed in on it. There are no unfinished conversations of other extenuating circumstances that warrant more time. The first and second relistings did not significantly change things. It is very unlikely that a third will. This listing should be closed as no consensus. ~KvnG 21:10, 23 February 2014 (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.