Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1-800 Contacts


 * 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 keep. — CharlotteWebb 15:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

1-800 Contacts
Smacks of spam, fails WP:CORP. Claim of "largest in world" is completely unsourced. Akradecki 18:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If lack of sources is the problem, then this, this, this, this, this, and this should help. Uncle G 18:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, large and well-known company with significant news coverage as shown by Uncle G. Needs expansion, but that shouldn't be hard. NawlinWiki 18:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep... meets WP:CORP.--Isotope23 19:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * keep I've seen this company's commercials, and they appear notable enough to me. -- P.B. Pilh  e  t  /  Talk  21:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep notable company. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  01:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Subject is notable. They have run a national ad campaign across all media (TV, Radio, Print) for 7-8 years at least.  Companies with those kind of resources are eminently notable.  The article is crap, however, and needs a major rewrite.  The entire article consists of a single legal case.  Corp articles need to mention more on company history, sales, services provided, industry ranking, etc. etc.  The current article would make a good section of the main article.  However, badly written articles do NOT mean that the subject is non notable.  This subject is notable, and should be kept.  --Jayron32 03:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Subject is clearly notable, even without my lenses in. Nomination smacks of failure to watch TV for the past decade. I can't understand why there is nothing in the article about the company, its sales, history, ownership, advertising, etc., and the exisitng article focuses exclusively on a single lawsuit. Besides, what about the article "smacks of spam"? Alansohn 15:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Have a look at the at the article at the time of nomination. The content that you refer to isn't there because the sources used, listed above, don't provide any of it.  Feel free to locate sources that do discuss the company's advertising, and to use those sources to expand the article accordingly. Uncle G 17:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Me?!?!?! I thought you were going to take care of expanding the article. I found some really great sources (this, this, this, this, this, and this) that should really help you with your task. Alansohn 19:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No you didn't. Those are the sources that I listed above.  As I said, they don't provide the content that you want.  Read them.  If you want content in the article dealing with the aspects of the company that you mention, find sources for those aspects, and then edit the article.  Uncle G 09:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? I'm pretty certain I found these sources with my own independent research. I have already made additional changes to the article to expand it beyond the one legal case. Alansohn 06:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - as others have noted, this is an undoubtedly notable company... It is however in desperate need of a drastic rewrite and expansion. I'm frankly surprised at the small amount of information about a commonly known company. It looks like Uncle G and others are already at work revising it. -Porlob 13:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove It's about a company as opposed to about anything else. If it were 1800 contacts vs. WhenU that might be different, but add in all the company information and all of a sudden they're using it as an ad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.50.66.9 (talk • contribs) 2006-10-13 17:03:06
 * 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.