Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SHOP.CA


 * 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. Also was in G11 territory, written in pure marketese. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

SHOP.CA

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

An article which was previously declined at WP:AFC because of being "advertisingly", newly accepted by a rather new user, contains still many advertising peacock terms and moreover doesn't meet WP:GNG nor WP:WEB. Of all 6 references are two primary sources, one press release and the others only mention the shop bypassing.

PS: all references have a ,' at the end and thus doesn't display correctly. mabdul 20:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Mabdul. SHOP.CA is notable because nothing has ever been done on this scale before in Canada, at least not in terms of retail eCommerce. We'll have considerably more external sources once we launch.  What can I do to help bring the current article in line with your requirements?  This is my first time out, and I'm absolutely open to suggestions/assistance/edits.


 * PS: Can you show me an example of correct reference code? Does the ,' go just before the closing tag?
 * MarketingMaiden (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Check the history of the article: I fixed the, problem (by removing them after the url!). You still can improve and change the article: so include your references or mention them here and we can see if that chop is worth to get an article in an encyclopedia! mabdul 09:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, mabdul. I appreciate the help. Working on edits and searching out additional references now. Will post notes shortly. MarketingMaiden (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, mabdul. I appreciate the help. Working on edits and searching out additional references now. Will post notes shortly. MarketingMaiden (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Userfy or Delete. It hasn't even opened yet, has no notability, article doesn't prove any. Should not exist (at least not yet) on Wikipedia per WP:CRYSTAL. After several months, if it has significant coverage in numerous reliable sources (that are not advertising or press releases, it might be worth it to replace on Wikipedia (in a truncated, NPOV form), but not before that. Right now it's just an obvious, blatant promotion/advertising, and the article creator admits that on her userpage. It's clearly on Wikipedia to publicize the opening of a store. Softlavender (talk) 10:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - There is no significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability for this company/web site which has yet to even launch. The article itself is promotional in tone and would need a fundamental rewrite to adhere to a neutral point of view. -- Whpq (talk) 16:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. I searched the Globe and Mail and the National Post websites for "shop.ca" and came up with nothing relevant.  A Google search also turned up no evidence of significant independent coverage; moreover, in looking at my Google results for ("shop.ca" online canada), I was struck by the number of hits for sites like futureshop.ca, scoutshop.ca, thewebshop.ca, etc.  If shop.ca were receiving significant coverage, I think it'd show up in Google results before these supposedly more obscure websites.  If the company proves to have staying power, a new article can be written: one that adheres to WP:NOTADVERTISING.  Ammodramus (talk) 01:53, 11 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.