Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ABCOffice


 * 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 of the nomination was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

ABCOffice
Article about an online office supplies retailer. No asserted notability. Article was created by (what a subtle choice of username) whose only edits are external link spamming. The article has been reworked a bit but still fails WP:CORP or WP:WEB. Pascal.Tesson 03:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:CORP and WP:WEB. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 04:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pure spam. -Seidenstud 12:22, 5 July 2006 (MDT)
 * Comment Calling the page "pure spam" is an exxageration. -- ABCOffice.com 03:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)-- The page follows the neutral point of view criteria by sticking to an objective history of the company and avoids making outrageous claims of having "the best" of anything. The ABC page is far less spammy than Office Max's or Office Depot's Wikipedia pages, which are blatantly commercial with inclusions of sale offers, return policies, etc. The page has only has 1 external link, fewer than Office Max's page, and is full of internal links to existing Wikipedia pages, so to accuse it of external link spamming is disingenuous. Edits and links to the ABC Page I made were done in accordance with the orpan page notice posted.  As for notablility issues, ABC Office is a formidable ecommerce presence on the Web, and should not be penalized for not getting the negative notoriety the Dot-bombs garnered, (who have their own Wikipedia sites).  Rather than knee- jerk deletion, please excuse my lack of Wiki-coding experience and make recommendations to fix the page to bring it into compliance.    Thank you.
 * Comment I would take that criticism more seriously if you were not responsible for vandalizing the Office Max article by including an external link to its competitor OfficeZone (which ABCOffice owns I suppose). If that's any comfort to you I've edited a bit of the Office Max article and have tagged the Office Depot article for spam-cleanup. But this AfD debate is about ABCOffice and not the articles devoted to its competitors. There are three important criticisms which you completely fail to adress:
 * the article was started by someone directly involved with the company which begs the issue of WP:NPOV and WP:VAIN and of course WP:SPAM.
 * the article is about a company that fails WP:CORP.
 * the article is about a web-service that fails WP:WEB.

These are the issues you should adress. Pascal.Tesson 18:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * CommentThe reason I mentioned the Office Depot and Office Max pages is because I used those as a template of an "acceptable" Wikipedia page for corporations, which was why I was perplexed at the negative attention the ABC page has received. As far as the NPOV, VAIN, and SPAM critiques,  I am an hourly employee for ABC Office, but I have no stake in the company, other than my bi-weekly, minimum wage, check.  To avoid the appearance of impropriety, I was cautious to exclude sales pitches, past advertising gimicks, slogans, financial information and mascot histories.  It warrants the question, though, why would anyone not affiliated with a business entity take time to originate a wikipedia page for that company?  The article does include links to competitor's Wikipedia sites, only has one external link, covers only the history of the company, and the previous logo was replaced with a better, neutral graphic.  Rather than being vague, if you would please reference specifics on the page that need addressing that would be appreciated.  I want to be in compliance.


 * Delete there is only one way for this business to comply, unfortunately, until it becomes more notable - not a question of rewriting. Sorry. SM247 My Talk  23:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I'm seeing a lot of company employees earnestly trying to rework advertisements into encyclopedia articles.  Tychocat 09:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment The page tells the story about how a Mom_and_pop_shop, started 25 years ago in someone's house, has flourished in a world dominated by giant box stores. That feat alone should be notable, not fettered away.  And what makes ABC Office less notable than Acxiom, ALLTEL,  Precept Insurance, Tuttle_Publishing,  Sikorsky, or Bass_Pro_Shops?  You have ceded that the page content is acceptable, and ABC's growth and success through the Dot_com_bubble, where bigger companies failed, makes it worth noting. ABCOffice.com 10:54, 6 July 2006 (MDT)
 * Comment I have not ceded the page content is acceptable, nor have you addressed any of the policy issues mentioned above, beyond claiming that, as a paid employee of the firm, you can be counted on to be fair, and that this article isn't advertising.  Let me be yet another person to refer you to WP:CORP, WP:NPOV, WP:VAIN, and of course WP:SPAM.  Tychocat 07:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * CommentVain: “While an article about a little-known company, say, should not automatically be taken as a vanity article, it is preferable for the initial author not to be an owner, employee of, or investor in the company;” – It’s preferable but not required. My being an employee does not automatically call for deletion.  I could have done what every other corporate contributor did and just make up a phoney username so you couldn’t trace it back to the company.  At least I was honest.

NPOV: “articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias.” This article does not violate NPOV because it’s a neutral history of a company. It doesn’t make biased claims, and it links to competitor’s Wikipedia sites. All the information in the text is verifiable and on public record. If you actually read the article it focuses on origins, locations and ownership changes. Sales and other non-verifiable information was omitted.

Spam: The only reasons 3 or 4 links to this page were added to other Wikipedia sites was to get the page off the “orphaned articles” list, as was instructed by the add links tag placed at the top of the page. There are 17 links to other Wikipedia pages but only 1 external link. That hardly qualifies as Spam. There is no “sales oriented language” in the text so it should be differentiated as a legitimate article about a commercial entity.

As far as notability, the page qualifies based on several articles that have been published referencing our company, including stories in: Dezignare Interior Design,out of Austin Texas; The Salt Lake Tribune; and an upcoming publication from Fahy-Williams, out of Geneva, NY. You still haven’t answered why ABC is less notable than the other companies listed in the previous posting.

I have been specific in my explanations on why the page does not violate the WP guidelines cited. Now would you please be specific on why you believe it does, other than that it was written by an employee, which according to policy is not recommended but does not automatically warrant deletion. ABCOffice.com :28, 10 July 2006 (MDT)
 * ''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.