Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of online stores


 * 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. Consensus seems to be that this is too broad a topic, and the article maintained far too sparsely, for it to be any kind of useful navigational or research tool. The sheer volume of businesses that can be classed as "online stores" means that categories are likely to be the only feasible way of producing reasonable directories in this topic. ~ mazca  talk 16:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

List of online stores

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

I'm not sure what the value of this list is. We already have a number of categories (that themselves need to be cleaned up), but trying to maintain a list including which products are sold and which countries are served just seems like a guarantee that this is going to be always out of date. KarlB (talk) 02:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. This might have been a good idea for a list 15 years ago, but unfortunately that was before Wikipedia was started. Per WP:SALAT, "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value ...." That fits this list to a T. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 08:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 08:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Scope is too broad. Also, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Overly broad list. Carrite (talk) 20:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep What is intended of course, is list of notable  online stores, and it is just as important now as it would have been when there were only a very few of them. More valuable actually; any red-linked ones need examination to see if there should be an article, and removed if not clearly notable. Strange group of arguments for deletion: first, that there will be additional entries (there will never be reason to remove them, because once notable the site remains notable no matter what happens to it), and that since this group is very notable and very well known, the list is not encyclopedic. Unless the list is so broad in scope that it is unmanageably long, which it currently is not, there is no reason to divide it. If someone works on it sufficiently to justify making multiple more specific lists, then it can be split, but that an argument for keep and split, not delete, and it would be folly to delete what wee have because we want to write something more extensive.   My idea of a list too broad to be useful is "list of web sites".  DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - The criteria of the article has been changed to "This is a list of notable online stores" in the article's lead section. As such, the list has a discriminate focus, and serves to provide information about the stores as well as serving as a useful navigation guide for Wikipedia articles. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * delete. This list (and the other one, which I can't tell the difference between) purports to list the contents of these categories:
 * Category:Online retailers 82
 * Category:Online retail companies by country 339
 * Category:Book selling websites 38
 * Category:Online music stores 105
 * Category:Online grocers 18
 * Category:Commerce websites 181
 * Category:Online music stores 105
 * If we add this up, it is about 868 articles which could conceivably be placed here. This does not even count *other* retailers which do some form of business online, allowing one to buy gift cards, mobile phone minutes, groceries, etc. I think it would be much more valuable to spend time sorting out the categories that exist, than to try to spend time maintaining this list which should technically have over 800 items in it. Finally the attempt to centrally catalogue what these sites sell, and where they sell to, is not encyclopedic or worth of a separate list; the list of items sold by any of these stores will change constantly; for example, 1-800 flowers, which is on both lists, doesn't only sell flowers; and the Amazon description of 'everything' is a great use of that term for marketing purposes, but also inaccurate; we might say amazon sells *a lot* of things, but they don't sell 'everything'. Thus, this list is too broad. I think a more interesting list might be notable retailers who do *not* have an online shopping available, since that is becoming more and more rare these days. --KarlB (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - However, per WP:NOTDUP, "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative. Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." Northamerica1000(talk) 17:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not the argument made above. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * reply Yes, but the argument is not that this should be deleted b/c of the category, the argument is that this should be deleted because it doesn't provide any additional useful content *over* the category. For example, this list purports to provide information on:
 * products sold
 * Headquarters
 * countries served
 * I would contend that at least two of those are not encyclopedic, and we should *not* attempt to store them. Countries served could be broadly interpreted; is it all countries where they are willing to ship their products? If so, Amazon (and many other retailers) will ship almost everywhere, and the policies about where they will ship will change frequently, so storing this info in wikipedia is not useful. Secondly, in terms of products sold, the preponderance of 'everything' just illustrates the pointlessness of that section - in looking down the list, I haven't found many which are actually correct, and I don't think we should try - JC Penny sells BBQ grills, and patio furniture, and tote bags... We already have categories for the big topics these stores cover - music, books, retail, etc, and I'm sure other useful categories could be created - but we should not have a list of products sold, because it is just guaranteed to be wrong. Finally, headquarters can be captured by the category (e.g. . Again, as currently framed, or in its full extent, the question is, is this list useful for the encyclopedia to maintain - imagine there are 800 links? What I would suggest, as another option, is that you look at merging into these articles with existing lists of retailers, and note as an attribute where a given retailer has an online presence (which, as discussed before, is more common than not) - like List_of_bookstore_chains and other lists here . Then, we could have useful, small lists, and be able to sort on whether they have an option to purchase online - rather than just having a two separately maintained lists, one which has JC Penney and the other which has JCPenney.com. But even that is not ideal - as it requires us trying to track, when a given retailer has moved from a brochure-ware website into a website where you can purchase things - and what if they just allow purchase of gift cards, or downloading of coupons but no ordering? is that online shopping? The whole thing is a maintenance nightmare - and the current extent and wrongness of these lists just illustrates the wikipedia hasn't done a good job of maintaining them to date in spite of best efforts by editors. --KarlB (talk) 18:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * comment one more thing - can the defenders of these lists at least explain what the difference is between the two? --KarlB (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * comment a recent report:, which suggests there are over 50,000 pure-play online retailers. Not all of them are notable, of course, but that's still a vast marketplace; hence the reason we believe this list is too broad.--KarlB (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

In addition, the list must contain relevant content beyond what is provided by the category system. Such content might include: products (defined more tightly to avoid the false claim that any retailer sells 'everything' ... I don't believe that Costco.com, for instance, offers F-16s or investment banking services), headquarters, date of establishment, revenue and/or traffic (some measure of number of visitors, customers or registered users). Currently, I favor keeping the list and renaming it to List of online retailers or perhaps List of online-only retailers. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep A list of notable entries which go hand-in-hand with the categories, per WP:CLN.  Lugnuts  (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Too broad in scope for a discriminate list to emerge from the criteria for inclusion. Not all appropriate categories make for appropriate list articles.  Them From  Space  16:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that there are two main issues which need to be addressed: scope and content. If the list is to be useful, its scope must be clearly defined. I concur with the nom that a list of notable retailers which merely have an online store is basically indiscriminate. However, a list of notable online retailers (i.e., retailers that conduct business primarily, or perhaps even entirely, online) is, in my opinion, perfectly valid and discriminate.
 * Delete - I am by all accounts a non deletionist and even I can't see a need for this one. Kumioko (talk) 14:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that deletionist/inclusionist leanings are overly relevant in this instance: for instance, I'm probably considered to be on the deletionist side due to my position on unsourced content, yet I've argued to keep this list (which can be sourced quite easily). -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I was being lazy so let me give a little bit better and more academic response. :-) I think that having a list like this of online retailers is irrelevent given that most major retailers are now online in some form. The list would never be completable and if it was would be thousands of rows long. I think the scope of this list is too broad and if kept it should be broken into more realistic and digestible chunks such as List of Online electronics stores, List of Online Shoe stores, etc. Even then I just think this amounts to an unneeded article that is not really very academic or encyclopedic. Kumioko (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your detailed response. I agree with the first part, that a list of retailers which are "online in some form" would be too broad and lack significance. It is safe to say, I think, that every notable retailer has a website and a large number (perhaps even most) allow online shopping. I suggested, above, limiting the scope of the list of retailers that conduct business primarily or exclusively online. Although I'm changing my mind about the former (How does one determine what constitutes "primarily"?), I think the latter idea – online-only retailers – would result in a list that is quite narrowly defined. It would exclude retailers such as Costco, Sears, Target and Walmart, focusing instead on ones such as Amazon.com, Bluefly and iTunes Store. Of course, one's mileage may vary as to whether online-only retailing is a significant characteristic around which to organize a list; however, it would be significantly more discriminate than the current list. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, so I think limiting the scope would be a good start but I think we would have some trouble marking some since the cross multiple spectrums. Take Ebay and Amazon for example, both of them cater to multiple audiences, both cater only to online but are starting to seed into offline retailers. Amazon even has the multi million item US government NSN's (National Stock Numbers) for government goods so that the cheapest prices can be found. Using another example, and not trying to be too terribly innapropriate how do we define an "online retailer"? Would that include Adult sex sites, or porn sites? It could be argued that these are online retailers and it could be argued that these should have a list too since several make in the tens of millions of dollars a year. Even limiting to just Electronics online retailers I think we are going to get a very long list. In the end I just don't think that even if we spend the time to narrow down a set of definitions that the article/list would be very encylcopedic. What would such an article really be for? How would we keep it updated? How would we keep it referenced? I just think that there are too many factors that makes this a bad list. I hope that helps. Kumioko (talk) 18:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I had proposed somewhere that this be made into a list of major retailers who do not have online shopping (ie they may have a website, but you cant' purchase anything from them online - like http://www.traderjoes.com/about/general-faq.asp). That would be a real research effort, and would be interesting, and probably quite small. we'd have to limit it somehow, so perhaps to retailers with $xM in annual sales? This reports suggests there are 50,000 pure-play online retailers:, so I don't think we want to maintain such a list...--KarlB (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Those are interesting points, and you've both given me quite a bit to think about. I've been thinking a bit about it – not ignoring it, I assure you :) – and will post a response in the next day or so. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice research KarlB! I was going to vote "keep" but with conditions to narrow the scope and improve the article as per Black Falcon and Kumioko. But when I saw the number of online-only retailers, its clear that such a list cannot be maintained. Therefore: delete. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a prime example of WP:LISTCRUFT. My primary issue: #6. The list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable, and #1. The list was created just for the sake of having such a list. Now, if it were a list of the 100/1000 largest online stores, OK, but he only requirement for inclusion is notability.  It's WAY too broad, hence, it's essentially unlimited.
 * Delete -- KarlB's research shows that such a list cannot be maintained and the categories do a better job of keeping up with future expansion. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 04:26, 25 May 2012 (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.