Talk:Bob's Watches/Archives/2018

Article history
I'm sorry, but I really have to question why this was recreated without community consensus at DRV to overturn the last AFD. Community consensus was overwhelming and community disapproval of the company's methods even more so. , the company in question has an absolutely terrible reputation around here and a record of promo-spam, edit-warring, and sock-puppetry. I'm all for second chances but creating a new article that smacks (again) of promotionalism isn't a good start. I respect that you've been paid to create this and that you may well have had no involvement in the previous version of this article but it doesn't bode well. The company has obviously done a lot since the last time they were here to generate some real-world coverage and the subject likely passes WP:CORPDEPTH where it certainly didn't before. But please take the time to go through the article and reduce some of the promotional language. Again, an effort to establish consensus for recreation would have been much preferred.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 09:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't see any need to go to DRV since I wasn't recreating the old article but was making an entirely new one with the same name. As you pointed out, it now has sufficient references to establish notability. I worked with the client to help them understand 1.) notability requirements, 2.) Wikipedia not being an advertising platform or soapboax, etc., and 3.) transparency requirements in the terms of use. I'm not saying the article as it stands is flawless but it doesn't have any outrageously promotional language (e.g. "X is the best product on the market!") so I don't know how much I can amend the text to make it better, honestly. I am not going to be policing this page (although I do watch it) and the client understands that I cannot control content here on the encyclopedia by fiat. If anyone else thinks he can improve this, I'm happy to have him do as much. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I respect that you have an entirely different attitude to those who created this last time, but it's not "entirely new" - it's about the same products from the same company and has the same promotional intent as last time (the big difference being that this time they paid someone competent). I'm just uncomfortable with the idea of an established community consensus being disregarded simply because the company paid for it to be so. Anyway, it's done now and there are a few active editors watching it.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 23:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I don't even disagree with you in principle but I have never viewed DRV as a process for creating new material under the same name but rather as review of a particular piece of media as it was being restored (or userfied or turned into a draft, etc.) —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I would see it as falling under DRV#3 - "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;". That would be all of the coverage from last year and this year since the deletion. The fact that an editor in good standing was seeking to recreate the page (COI or not) would also be a matter for consideration on the same basis. But I appreciate where you're coming from.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 21:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I have removed the section, which compares New York Stock Exchange model to Bob's Watches, It's misleading and bias. A Stock Exchange and a Marketplace are two different things.

COI editing
In case it was not clear from the edit summary, my insertion of the template at the top, and the statement on my userpage, I was contacted by this company to create content for the article and paid for my editing. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯