Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One stop phone shop


 * 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 debate was delete. There were merge suggestions and some mergeing appears to have been done. If there is still useful content that hasn't been merged request a temporary undeletion at WP:DRV. Thryduulf 17:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

One stop phone shop
Current article is an advert, not clear if the subject could be notable. DJ Clayworth 04:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * for a start it's a company and is owned by the Carphone Warehouse which is notable. Secondly, you refer to a 'subject', what is it you're refering to? thirdly if this is an advert then every wikipedia article on a company is an advert...


 * "not speediable but certainly worth of afd)" I have no idea what you mean by speediable, this word isn't even listed in the wikipedia dictionary. I'm also a little perturbed by the fact that originally  you deleted this article with no word to its creator whatsoever. Supposed 04:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. dcandeto 04:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The whole attitude on here in regards to articles like this escapes me. Not only are there plenty of articles on companies in wikipedia but this article is drawing attention to the cashback trend in mobile phone retailing,, the positive and negative aspects associated with it. Supposed 04:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a merge to Carphone Warehouse, as in its present state, the article may be too short and barely notable to merit its own article -- T B C [[Image:Confused-tpvgames.gif|18px|]] ???  ???   ??? 04:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:CORP. A bit of explaination for the original poster seems to be needed. While Carphone Warehouse may be big enough to be noteable, its brands and products normally should appear only in the main article for the company.  Notable products, like the iPod, may have articles of their own, but non-famous products and names of subsidiaries belong in the main article.  Understand that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising.  Any article that could be construed as an ad is a likely candidate for deletion.  Because so many companies, people, and bands try to use Wikipedia for self-promotion, the people who watch for this tend to be a bit curt with promotional attempts.  This can be confusiong to newcomers.  Write an article on something you're not selling and you'll receive much better treatment.  Thanks. --John Nagle 04:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Firstly John I'm not selling anything, I know you can't' be sure of that but do you think it's likely? OSPS (the company) was bought by Carphone Warehouse some time ago, just like epinions and dealtime (now shopping.com) was bought by ebay which both have their own articlces. I suppose OSPS is now a brand but that brand has an image, which is best displayed in an encylopedia which takes a neutral point of view.Supposed 04:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as apparently failing WP:WEB and WP:CORP. Also, for using the buzz word "e-tailing". --P e ruvianLlama(spit) 04:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * e-tailing is not a buzz word it is a term used in retail geography by leading academics in their field.* Supposed 04:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I guess that joke wasn't as obvious as I had wanted it to be: I don't really object to the use of the term "e-tailer" in an article, I was just being silly. --P e ruvianLlama(spit) 06:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as WP:CORP WP:SPAM. Roy  boy cr ash  fan  [[Image:Flag of Texas.svg|30px]] 04:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Actually, the original article is a bit critical, and could be more so. Search Google for "one stop phone shop" and "complaints".  They've been cited by the Advertising Standards Authority twice, and many customers report that obtaining the promised "cash back" is very difficult.  Apparently the company is only eleven people in Crewe, so this isn't a notable company.  Suggest merging into main article of parent company. --John Nagle 04:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm ok with the article being merged, along with e2save which was also bought by CPW but has suffered less complaints. Interestingly this is not going to help CPW's image, I stress this is not my intention in creating the article but problems experienced by customers are noteworthy. Supposed 04:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. You can go ahead and do the merge yourself, then say here that you, the creator, are OK with deleting this article, and it will shortly disappear.  --John Nagle 05:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * How notable are The mobile awards? If they are notable the article has met WP:WEB criteria.Supposed 05:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment I take back that assertion, the award was given to the Carphone Warehouse for customer service!, what a wonderful company :-). Supposed 05:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Carphone Warehouse. Just zis Guy you know? 12:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, nn retailer. Maybe mention it in Carphone Warehouse.  Lankiveil 12:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC).
 * Delete, per above. -- so U  m  y  a  S  ch  13:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge and expand. The article doesn't read like advertising to me; in fact, it suggests a scam.  More details on the nature of the operation and links to news stories would be helpful regardless of what's done with it.  Smerdis of Tlön 14:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WEB and WP:CORP. In my opinion the The mobile awards are not at all notable.--Isotope23 16:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Isotope23. -- Kjkolb 21:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect Carphone Warehouse not notable as a seperate article Funky Monkey 00:51, 13 April 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.