Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Auto Parts Place


 * 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 delete. I'm not extending this AfD as requested by JamesMLane, because the problem is finding sources for WP:CORP-level coverage, which requires no particular technical knowledge. Sandstein 20:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Auto Parts Place


Non-notable corporation, no multiple reliable third party coverage of the company per WP:CORP. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as advertising. meshach 00:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - As per nom... Spawn Man 02:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear editors, I am not sure what you see in the article as promotional. There are several lines that contain strictly factual information, which can all be verified. Nothing in the article says the company is good in any way or suggests that people should visit the company. I challenge anyone who is reviewing the article to find any assumptions listed. The BBB link was a reference to verify that the company exists and has been in business for the duration of time specified. The format of the article is: 1. Company does this 2. Company sells this; nothing more. Listing a supplier for any company is simply more useful information. It is standard and beneficial to list suppliers for companies. We see supplier info all the time in government agencies, aerospace industry, pharmaceutical companies…etc. In no way does listing a supplier suggest you should buy from them. It is just more useful information to those inquiring about the company. It would be detrimental to Wikipedia and dangerous to society if we passed laws to restrict all supplier information, especially from the industries listed above.

You made the claim that “The next 2 links are both self-generated articles which anyone can write and publish about themselves”. This is a gross assumption; one that can be made for virtually any publication found. If a news company reviews another site and is pleased, they are most likely going to write positive things about them. You are also assuming the company has such power over the site who decided to publish the article. Regardless of an article’s origin, it still has to be important enough for others to publish it. I could only imagine the world if we starting shutting companies and people out based on our assumptions. .


 * There is no gross assumption here. Both articles were published on PRweb which is a paid press release organization that takes company provided material and distributes it over the internet to its affiliates. Both articles list HIGH PERFORMANCE PROSE as the author or provider. This is a PR firm that lists Auto Parts Place as one of its clients, so these articles are not exactly "independent" reviews by a news company.  So either your company or your advertising firm wrote these articles.  The articles read like advertisements for Auto Parts Place and are sent out as RSS feeds to thousands of websites that subscribe to these feeds. Usually dozens may publish a company's press release, with the only criteria that its relevant to an industry the publication addresses.  None of the websites where these articles were published wrote these articles and they published them verbatim.  These articles neither qualify as criteria for Notability within WP nor as a valid, independent assessment of your organization. As such, they should not be used as a citation Notability (companies and corporations) nor linked because of the non neutral status of the content WP:NPOV.  There is also further comments regarding other items discussed here on Talk:Auto Parts Place. Calltech 23:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe there is a double standard being applied here. I have added more external links but no one has addressed the fact that the following sites have only *one* external link which is pointing to *themselves*.


 * Big O Tires
 * SFX Performance
 * United Auto Group
 * AutoNation
 * 310 Motoring
 * Daimler-Hyundai Truck

…and the list goes on

A completely different standard of notability is being applied to this company. We have seen a few of the companies above plastered all over TV because of their huge advertising budgets. In the old days search engines catered to companies who could buy their way in and in the end they lost. One of the reasons Google emerged as a leader was because they cared more about useful information as opposed to marketing budgets. This is what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. Let’s not delete a company with a major online presence because they don’t have enough national commercials.

This company was listed under the category “Auto Parts Retailers”. This is exactly what it is. If this article is deleted based on notability, I would hope that the other companies with less of an online presence and 0 external links verifying their notability be re-evaluated and removed. However, I don’t believe that this would benefit those using Wikipedia, especially those looking for information about Auto Parts Retailers. --Auto Parts for Brains 15:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Remember Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia and is not for advertising. Unfortunatley using that Strawman Argument against other articles to defend your position to keep Auto Parts Place on wikipedia, does not change the fact that it fails WP:CORP. Hu12 16:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree - two wrongs don't make a right. Some of those articles are also about non-notable companies and they also need to be AfD's.  That's grounds for deleting them too - not grounds for keeping this article. SteveBaker 13:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. A Yahoo! search for  "Auto Parts Place" -wikipedia yields 15,000+ hits (Google, for some reason, "only" 12,000+).  Some are generic references to an auto parts place but most appear to mean this company.  I don't understand the argument that this is advertising.  No one will find this article except by entering the company name or following a link.  It's not being shoved at anyone. JamesMLane t c 09:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - The reason you see so many hits is because you ask someone "Say where did you get that fancy exhaust tip?" and the answer is "I forget, some kind of auto parts place." - of the handful of hits I checked, the majority were not about this specific company. SteveBaker 13:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment to closing admin. When the AfD was started, this article hadn't been listed in the WikiProject Automobiles.  I've put a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Articles to invite the WikiProject's members to give their opinions here.  (I don't even own a car, so what do I know.)  I suggest that this AfD be kept open for a while beyond the fifth day, to accommodate participation by the presumed experts on our automotive coverage. JamesMLane t c 10:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - I think the company is non-notable - which is grounds for deletion. SteveBaker 13:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not an inclusion guideline, WP:CORP is. WP:COI also appears to apply. Guy (Help!) 13:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - CORP issues. If it is sourced w/ external links I am open to keeping however -- Tawker 07:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.