Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob's Watches (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus. I think we need to call time (he-he) on this discussion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:17, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Bob's Watches
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This page was deleted per a deletion discussion in 2013 and created again, directly, by a paid editor in 2014 (disclosed in that diff and on talk; not put through AfC). Its creation was immediately protested on talk; it was tagged for speedy by User:DGG but that was stripped. And so it has stood. This page hits almost all the notes in WP:Identifying PR and is an advertisement, from the UNDUE mention of its patent application in the lead to the list of "media appearances" to the EL to its patent application. Notability is marginal per the revised WP:ORGCRIT and in any case the content here should not exist in WP. Please delete and salt, since the subject company has a very clear intent to abuse WP for PR. Even if this is kept, the AfD will serve as community review. Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure of the extent to which other community members want to "count" my !vote but I will say that I worked with this company to establish third-party reliable sources with substantial content. If community members have feedback on how to improve the article in addition to !votes on deletion/keeping, then that would be appreciated. For what it's worth, I have no existing/continuing relationship with them and they don't have me on any retainer or contract for further work, so I'm just interested in making a stronger article at this point. Thanks. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Does "to establish third-party reliable sources with substantial content." mean you located them, or that you arranged for them to be published? This is for information--I recognize that it's a regular part of the PR profession to try to get reputable magazines to publish articles on the client--which is one of the reasons for my skepticism about sourcing in this field.  DGG ( talk ) 21:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Neither--I have no relationship with any of those publishing companies or media outlets. I just told the company themselves that they need to have third-party sources and then they found them. Whether or not they had anything to do with arranging publication is something I don't know. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. The references are mostly either directly promotional or highly influenced by their promotions . The best references are te ones that simply discuss the market, and mention them as one of the companies. There seems to be some remaining hype: They have a patent filed in the United States as the only e-commerce company to utilize the exchange concept."  They filed and received a patent. That doesn't mean that the patent is valid, or that they are the only company doing similar. For a dealer to post prices as We will buy at X, and sell at Y is an ancient practice.  That they apply it to luxury watches would seem trivial.  DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) "The Internet has allowed for a growing market of luxury watch sellers,[8] due to the investment holding value.[9] " is about the industry as a whole. The article in ?Forbes mentions them as one of the dealers.  DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  This article was written by a Forbes staff member, not a Forbes contributor, so it is a reliable source. The article notes: "The 'he' is not actually named Bob. Rather, he's 60-year-old Bob's Watches owner Paul Altieri. His decision to list both figures, which he compares to the bid and ask prices on a stock exchange, sets him apart from other pre-owned-watch sellers on the Web. He introduced the feature six years ago when he relaunched Bob's Watches, a domain he bought for $8,000 from a North Carolina dealer, Bob Thompson, who was retiring. Started as an experiment that combined full-disclosure pricing with obsessive policing of fakes, Bob's Watches has grown quickly, bringing in a profit of nearly $2 million on revenue of just under $20 million last year. Altieri works with his wife--COO Carol Altieri--and 18 employees in a 5,000-square-foot space in Huntington Beach, Calif. that includes a dustproof room where a Rolex-trained watchmaker does overhauls and repairs. (The site offers other luxury brands--Patek Philippe, Panerai and Omega among them--but is known for its Rolexes.) Next to Altieri's desk sits a 6-foot-tall safe containing some 150 watches from his personal collection of 400 vintage Rolexes, which he says are worth north of $3 million. The rest are in a bank safe-deposit box he visits weekly to swap out models he enjoys wearing. ... He decided to buy the Bob's Watches domain because it had been registered since 1999, making it just four years younger than Amazon and winning it trust in Google rankings. To get his first inventory, he paid $198,000 for 25 Rolexes at an IWJG show, then sold them online at cost. It caught on: In 2010 Bob's Watches grossed $2 million. Three years later it hit $10.5 million and last year nearly $20 million."  The article notes: "Altieri is founder and CEO of Huntington Beach-based Bob's Watches, the world's largest online specialty retailer of pre-owned and vintage Rolexes. ... He, his wife, chief operating officer Carol Altieri, and a team of 21 employees operate in a 5,000-square-foot space in a nondescript Goldenwest Street shopping center that neighbors 405 Tropical Fish and Plato's Closet. There, certified watchmakers quote, service and identify every Rolex within a transaction. Marketing and commerce specialists build an online presence for the site, as Bob's consistently pops up as one of the top results on search engines. Sales representatives are responsible for customer service. Others load product pictures online. ... Bob's Watches also carries timepieces by Patek Philippe, Omega and Cartier, but Altieri said Rolex drives the resale market." <li> The article notes: "Paul Altieri, the owner of Bob’s Watches, has been in the trade for 35 years. In recent years he pivoted from direct sales to the resale of luxury watches. Altieri bought Bob’s Watches in 1999 and in 2009 transitioned it to a high-end watch exchange at bobswatches.com. He wanted to create a place for owners of posh pieces to safely buy and sell their treasures. ... Last year the Huntington Beach-based company transacted several thousand watches and brought in more than $20 million in revenue, bucking a trend in the luxury goods market. ... Here’s how it works at Bob’s Watches: Customers have their watches evaluated by Bob’s Watches, which then buys the watch, restores it and sells it. Prices online run from $2,500 to $25,000. Altieri said the site is unique because it lists the buy and sell price of each piece."</li> <li> The article notes: "As a watch nerd, I love to see the stuffy old watchmaking industry try new things. That’s why I was intrigued by the recent changes at Bob’s Watches, a retailer turned website that buys and sells Rolex watches using a very simple exchange model. Founded by Paul Altieri in 2010, the site was mostly a sales portal for years. Now, however, the company has created a Rolex Exchange, a real-time engine for pricing Rolex watches. Owners can post their own watches for sale and Bob’s gets a cut while buyers can see prices for hundreds of pieces. ... What Bob’s has done is create a simple market. Buyers can ask for a quote and Bob’s will sell the watch through their site. This gives the seller a better chance of getting a fair price and reduces much of the risk in dealing with an anonymous online seller. Given that almost every watch hobbyist has seen at least one timepiece get “eaten” by FedEx or DHL, it’s nice to be able to pawn some of the risk off on another party. ... However, in the benighted world of watch retail, Bob’s is basically Google."</li> <li> The article notes: "Another model making waves is Bob’s Watches in Huntington Beach, Calif., an online exchange for buying and selling vintage and preowned Rolex watches. It offers full-disclosure on pricing and guarantees that each timepiece is a 100% authentic Rolex, including its parts. Paul Altieri, who relaunched the site seven years ago after acquiring the domain name, modeled it on a stock exchange. ... A Rolex Daytona White 16523 two-tone is available, for example, on Bob’s lists for $9,795; he will buy the same model from you for $6,800. By disclosing the markup, Altieri has lifted the veil on the shady practice of those dealers who buy on the cheap and then inflate the price for resale, in some cases by as much as 100%. Such openness has helped make Bob’s Watches one of the country’s biggest Rolex dealers. Altieri says he makes 700 to 800 transactions a month. In six years, business is up tenfold, from $2 million in revenue in 2010 to $20 million last year."</li> <li> The article notes: "History: Founded mid-1990s by Bob Thompson. Purchased by Paul Altieri in 2010. Altieri and partner Greg Greiner overhauled the website and introduced the pre-owned Rolex exchange." This article is not significant coverage, but I am including it here because it provides more information about the company's history.</li> <li> The article notes: "[Paul] Altieri, 60, has built a collection of hundreds of watches, generally finding them one by one. He has also built one of the largest online-watch-trading sites in the U.S., called Bob’s Watches, buying and selling 300 to 400 valuable time pieces a month." This article is not significant coverage, but I am including it here because it notes Bob's Watches is "one of the largest online-watch-trading sites in the U.S."</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Bob's Watches to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 08:11, 30 August 2018 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * Six of the seven sources I posted above were published after the 7 September 2013 close of Articles for deletion/Bob's Watches. The Los Angeles Times says Bob's Watches is "the world's largest online specialty retailer of pre-owned and vintage Rolexes". The Wall Street Journal says Bob's Watches is "one of the largest online-watch-trading sites in the U.S."  Barron's says Bob's Watches is "one of the country's biggest Rolex dealers".  TechCrunch says "in the benighted world of watch retail, Bob's is basically Google".  Cunard (talk) 08:11, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

"“The price he’s willing to pay gives you a degree of transparency,” says Richard Wilt of White Plains, N.Y. He bought his first Rolex, a 2003 Datejust, for $3,600 from Bob’s in April. Wilt says he even felt reassured by the spread. “It helps you trust where you stand.”"
 * Comment: I have removed the promotional information from the article. Cunard (talk) 08:11, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This still had marketing shit. I have cleaned it further. Jytdog (talk) 17:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * delete perWP:ORGSIG. I don't see anything that makes this notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia and the mere existence of a few sources doesn't make it so. At best, merge with Rolex or Watch. --regentspark (comment) 17:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: the sources offered above are closely related to self-promotion / WP:SPIP. Just a directory listing on a private business; does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:ORGIND. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Really disgusting how such blatant advertising managed to exist for such a long time...Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 01:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a pretty important company in a decidedly upscale market, with apparently a key article about it in the Wall Street Journal, which I don't have access to. I've made some changes in the text which may make it more acceptable to those who are opposed. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * User:BeenAroundAWhile the WSJ piece is a brief (457 words), kind of "color" piece, mostly focused on Altieri and his passion for Rolex. It has 9 short paragraphs; 6 and a half are about that, 1 and a half are about the business, and one is about what makes an old watch valuable or harms its value. Does nothing for notability; I only kept it because it has the useful "one of the largest online-watch-trading sites in the U.S" line.  Your comments on that source are rhetoric without substance. Jytdog (talk) 16:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Flipping through 's sources, and the article's citations, there seems to be news articles focused on the company published over about 4 years. Maybe they have great marketing staff that bias this coverage, but there's too much focused coverage for me to say this doesn't pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Daask (talk) 20:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Indepth Forbes article (by a Forbes editor, https://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/#6f7842513eca), reasonable TechCrunch article, indepth LA Times article, others … easily meets WP:GNG. If these are all advertising plants by their marketing department, well, then their marketing department has thoroughly earned its money. --GRuban (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NCORP specifically disqualifies Forbes sites for the purposes of establishing notability. The other articles fail ORGIND as they aren't intellectually independent and rely on company announcements/quotations/etc. Cunard tends to crop his selected quotes so as to hide the fact that the article content is often attributable to a company source. Not a single one of the sources meets the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG and WP:NCORP. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 20:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it specifically does not. It says: "an extensive company profile in Forbes blog by a non-staff contributor". That's why I linked that she is, in fact, a staff contributor. --GRuban (talk) 22:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You're correct. Article still fails ORGIND since she has based this on an interview and I can't identify or point to any original/independent opinion/analysis/investigation/etc that is clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 22:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure you can. Almost the whole second paragraph:
 * That is a prime example of original/independent opinion/analysis/investigation/etc that is clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. You can tell because she's attributing it. --GRuban (talk) 00:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree, but what exactly does that do to establish the notability of the company? That is has a customer? It is worthless from the point of view of establishing notability which is the entire point of applying NCORP. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 14:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The paragraph doesn't establish notability. The Forbes article (with the others) makes it meet WP:GNG, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Forbes is a reliable source, the article is significant coverage. You questioned whether it had any independent …, which I showed. I could have just said - "Dude, she's a Forbes editor, which is a pretty respected journalistic position, she's not gonna risk her rep by being a shill for a single article about a watch company", but no, I pointed to a specific example of where she had, in fact, done her own investigative work for the magazine. The notability doesn't come from what she writes, the notability comes from the fact that she writes, that Forbes, one of the top N business magazines in the world for a fairly small N, devoted space in their magazine (this was printed in the actual magazine, by the way, not just on their website, see: "This story appears in the July 26, 2016 issue of Forbes"), and the time of one of their editors that could have been spent on another business issue, to write about this company. That is what notability means, that the company has been noticed. Between Forbes, and the LA Times, and all the other articles, that is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". They have taken notice of it. We should too. --GRuban (talk) 14:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No, your interpretation is incorrect. I first of all made the mistake of dismissing the Forbes article as an unreliable source but you pointed out it wasn't and I then accepted it could be treated as a reliable source. I have already moved on from that but it appears you still believe you need to make this point again. Fair enough. We can move on now. Since it is a reliable source, I then applied the test on whether the article contains "intellectually independent" content that can be used for the purposes of establishing notability (as per WP:ORGIND. From my review of the article, there is nothing I can see which can be pointed to as being intellectually independent that can also be used to establish notability. The only intellectually independent pieces within the article are incidental and tangential to the subject company. Note, other people would say that a "customer" quotation is rarely unsolicited and often is regarded as being a connected source - I have not taken this approach. You have also gone to some trouble to explain your concept/interpretation of notability but I note that you have not expanded on "independent" very well and I suspect your definition would differ to mine and others here. While your description would suffice for most other categories of article, such as WP:PEOPLE, the guidelines for organizations/companies in WP:NCORP describes in detail what is meant by "independent" and "intellectually independent". So, in summary, you have established that an article was written and published in a reliable source and that it contains elements that can be regarded as intellectually independent. My rebuttal is that none of the intellectually independent parts have a relevance for establishing the notability of the company. You have not pointed to any elements within any article in any publication that are intellectually independent WP:ORGIND and also meet WP:CORPDEPTH. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 17:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 16:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 17:55, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete The article fails WP:NCORP because sources in the article and on the web fail to demonstrate that the company is notable. Buying stuff at one price and reselling it at a higher price is an ancient practice, so there is nothing unique or groundbreaking about what this company does. The article is highly promotional, which is unsurprising given that it was recreated by a paid editor. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:40, 22 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.