Talk:Watchfinder

Paging, , and. You all voted to delete the previous version of this article, which was finalised by Jo-Jo Eumerus. This is a notification that I have rewritten it. I also wrote much of the original version.

In the previous version I took great care to stick to facts showing notability and verified every one of them with independent, notable sources. I have done the same here. However, I have also heard your concerns about WP:NOTADVERTISING. The new article is a much reduced and simplified version that states briefly the key facts of the subject that establish notability, in an encyclopaedic tone. The facts are fully verified by highly notable, independent sources. I believe it meets all relevant Wikipedia standards, but I would very much appreciate any feedback or suggestions for improvement.

Let me be clear: The subject is a leading company in a major industry that far exceeds meets requirements for notability at WP:ORG. If this article is failing to meet standards, that is because it has not been constructed well enough, not because the subject itself is unworthy of inclusion.

I would like to draw your attention to the article Bob's Watches. This subject is a company in the exact same industry as Watchfinder (online sale of pre-owned watches). It is smaller and less significant than Watchfinder, and has less notable information in its article. The Bob's Watches article was written by famed editor Justin Knapp (hello! big fan!), whose services were paid for by Bob's Watches itself, as he states on his user page. Bob's Watches is a direct competitor of Watchfinder. Justin proposed deletion of the Watchfinder article, though the subject was as notable or more so than his client's. He did not attempt to contact me or in any other way improve the Watchfinder article to meet notability or other standards. He simply tried to remove it.

I hope that the new version meets all expectations for Wikipedia quality, which has always been my goal. Again, please do talk to me about improvements rather than simply deleting the article again! I am not online all the time so apologies if I am slow in responding. Many thanks!Thedarkfourth (talk) 01:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I did make a post to User_talk:Thedarkfourth to give you the heads-up. The problem with the previous entry was its tone and if that's fixed, then it's totally fair game to have this article as well as the one that I was commissioned to write. Definitely no hard feelings on my part and I hope not on yours. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yup, no hard feelings, thanks!Thedarkfourth (talk) 07:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Responding to ping. I don't have any serious concerns with the current article, and if someone else nominated it for deletion in its current state, I would now vehemently argue for keeping.  That said, there is the sentence "The Internet has allowed for a growing market of luxury watch sellers, due to the investment holding value."  This singular sentence sounds very marketing / press release speak, and not very encyclopedic... it's a lead-in for explaining why the company has market value, not why it has encyclopedic value.  It needs either encyclopedic context, or rephrasing, or something, but as is, it's marketing speak for "I'm a valuable investment!"
 * Again, this is only one sentence, and not worthy of nuking the article for... it's not even worthy of immediately nuking the sentence, as we might be able to rework it into the article with better phrasing. Fieari (talk) 07:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Fieari. That's interesting - I took that sentence verbatim from the Bob's Watches article (with attribution in the edit log), because I thought it worked well there to establish notability for the industry as well as the company. I find it difficult to think of an alternative way of doing that without still sounding like it's "bigging up" online watch retail ...it would be super useful if you could suggest a specific change so I get a sense of what you mean. No worries if you don't have time, I'll try to think of something.Thedarkfourth (talk) 19:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)