Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Safer Wholesale


 * 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. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Safer Wholesale

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per removed prod: It is one of companies that maintains an Ecommerce store without any major significance or encyclopedic reference. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  19:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: The reason isn't even written in good English. Look at Fiverr, TaskRabbit and other similar sites - they also read like an Advertorial.  Fiverr has been tagged for 14 months as an advertisement - I assume they contributed heavily to avoid deletion?TheDailyFlows (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding the other articles: I have thanked you for your input on your talk page.  The discussion of those articles can continue there and/or on the talk pages of the respective articles and/or on any future deletion discussion pages related to those articles, not here.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  19:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment by nominator: The nomination is admittedly poor grammar, I copied it verbatim from the contested proposed deletion.  Additional (and perhaps this should be considered the primary) reason for nominating:  The references do not demonstrate that this company has received significant coverage independent of the company itself (i.e. it fails WP:GNG) and I can't see any reason why it might pass WP:CORP either, at least not given the text present as of [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safer_Wholesale&oldid=585946821 the version dated 19:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)].  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  19:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Grammar is moot, and fixable by the many contributors who'll see the page. Care to skim the numerous businesses existing on Wikipedia that lack notational 'girth'? According to the 'tests' you are suggesting my page wouldn't pass, 3/4 of Wikipedia's listed businesses would cease to exist - so my suggestion is to delete them all, out of fairness.  Also, request deletion of Fiverr as numerous articles written about the site doesn't prove encyclopedic worth, and most of the page reads like an advertisement as well.TheDailyFlows (talk) 19:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The proper place to discuss other pages is on the talk page of those specific articles or on the talk pages of other editors which are already involved. In any case, we would not do en masse deletions for something that requires an article-by-article evaluation.  With a few exceptions such as articles on notable topics that are clearly written so poorly that it's best to WP:STARTOVER, editors will not agree to delete an article merely on the basis of the quality of the text.  Editors typically agree to delete an article if there is insufficient evidence in the article that the subject of the article (in this case, the company itself) meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, combined with a lack of any expectation that references could be easily found which could be added to the article to demonstrate that the subject of the article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines.  If you have specific articles you want me to look at, please list the least-notable-looking companies' articles on my talk page and I will look at them and we will go from there.  This page is not the place to continue this discussion.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  20:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Honestly, it seems every editor working for Wikipedia loves throwing their weight around - that's all I've been getting (mods deleting, telling me where I can write). Let's be frank here: Wikipedia is far removed from 'Holy Grail of Information' status; every article in Wikipedia is easily locatable online using Google.  Every other day, I see the infamous 'begging for spare change' banner above the fold on Wikipedia, sadly stating how Wikipedia needs my donation to pay for servers, pay for editor assistance - can you see why people aren't inclined to donate? You have hundreds of editors running around with hundreds of different opinions on what is 'plausible for inclusion' on this site when, in essence, the internet already has this information anyway.  Every editor can tell you to 'read another page', but cannot mark the areas that are deemed inappropriate - and you guys think your worthy of receiving donations?
 * All I wanted to do was write an article about Safer Wholesale; to this minute, although I've been read the riot act on WHY my article is a candidate for deletion, I've not actually been shown viable evidence as to HOW. If you wish to streamline edits, perhaps streamline our job by pointing out these areas where content is deemed 'advertorial' or 'inappropriate' - because without being shown a preponderance of evidence as to why our pages are being deleted, we as writers will find your words to hold little importance - from there, Wikipedia goes southward.TheDailyFlows (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * All I wanted to do was write an article about Safer Wholesale; to this minute, although I've been read the riot act on WHY my article is a candidate for deletion, I've not actually been shown viable evidence as to HOW. If you wish to streamline edits, perhaps streamline our job by pointing out these areas where content is deemed 'advertorial' or 'inappropriate' - because without being shown a preponderance of evidence as to why our pages are being deleted, we as writers will find your words to hold little importance - from there, Wikipedia goes southward.TheDailyFlows (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * We honestly appreciate your contributions to the encyclopedia. Please try to understand that content that is included on Wikipedia is expected to meet an encyclopedic standard, the definition of which has evolved over time and is subject to the consensus of everyone who contributes. There are established guidelines as to what qualifies as "encyclopedic" per the community's definition, such as the very general guidelines on WP:CORP - the notability of corporate entities - which we have referred to. We haven't discussed the guidelines here in great detail because that page exists with a top-level summary of all of these discussions which have already occurred over many years here. Based on that, it is my opinion (but not necessarily fact) that Safer Wholesale does not currently meet the inclusion standards, because there is a lack of independent sources to demonstrate why it should be included. That is my review of the notability of the company. Please also try to understand that we are not attacking you or your work - this is not in any way a review of the quality of what you have created. Please don't let this discourage you from participating. Ivanvector (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * (veering off-topic) I concur wholeheartedly with those last two sentences - we are not attacking you and I hope this experience does not discourage you from participating. It's unfortunate that you happened to pick a company which doesn't seem to qualify for an article.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  21:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Company fails WP:CORP. All links I can find are sourced by PRwire and similar websites, the content of which are likely to have been press releases from the company itself (see WP:IS) or review pieces for products that the company sells, all of which fail to demonstrate notability. Notability could be demonstrated by (for example) an in-depth review of the company's operations in a well-known business magazine, but I don't see anything like that. The reviews of the products that the company sells might be useful to demonstrate notability of the product but even that is slim, and doesn't apply here. The fact that there are other Wikipedia articles about marginally notable ecommerce websites is not sufficient to demonstrate notability, either. Ivanvector (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing that I see in that article supports any claim of notability in the article. No one denies that the company exists, but that's not enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Google returns mostly self-generated content. As it stands, the subject fails WP:CORP. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Most sources in the article are not independent (company pages and press releases and the like) and the remainder are mere directory entries or other very passing mentions. None of them even start to establish notability. A Google search found more of the same, plus reviews of Safer's merchandise that mention Safer itself only in passing. No relevant Google-news hits. No significant, much less in-depth, discussion by an independent source. Does not pass WP:GNG nor WP:CORP. For an online merchant, I would expect online sources to exist, so the usual cavaet about possible off-line sources does not apply. Unless substantial new sources are addded, this should be deleted. DES (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable company failing WP:Corp abd created by a wp:SPA. Trying to defend the page through WP:OSE never helps. Neonchameleon (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * (off-topic) Please do not assume brand-new accounts are single-purpose accounts. A significant number of "established editors" including myself started by editing either a single article or a set of related articles in their first few days or weeks here. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  23:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:CORP; sources do not meet WP:RS.  Mini  apolis  23:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete in regards to WP:CORP. I see very little sigcov. Aside from the new and now block editor's comments this has arguments towards a speedy or even snow deletion. Mkdw talk 00:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment – people are citing WP:CORP but are failing to describe exactly how it fails WP:CORP with these sources and notability. Epicgenius (talk) 00:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * At the risk of stating the obvious, WP:CORP requires that, among other things, there exist reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article that, taken together, provide significant coverage of the topic. Of the 6 sources listed in the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safer_Wholesale&oldid=585985638 00:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)] edit, two are clearly not independent of the subject (sources 4 and 5) and the rest, taken one at a time, clearly do not provide the depth of coverage required by WP:CORP.  Even looked at collectively, sources 1, 2, 3, and 6 do not provide the depth of coverage required by WP:CORP, as most or all of them are providing only "routine" information (see WP:CORPDEPTH) and therefore contributing nothing or nearly nothing to the combined "significance" of the coverage across sources 1, 2, 3, and 6.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  01:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * citation #3 (WhoIs registrant information, Safer Wholesale) is not independent either. Although maintained by a registrar, such information is supplied by the registrant, i.e. the company. Cites 1 and 6 are information about the web site, not about the company. The total content of cite 2 is:
 * "'SaferWholesale.com sell over 18,000 items. Fun products for less. Go Karts, Atvs, Scooters, Dirt Bikes, Utility Vehicles. Save Money today."
 * plus a telephone number. Hardly in-depth coverage, indeed it has noting of value but evidence that the company exists. Absent additional sources being added I see nothing to debate., do you claim that this even comes close to passing WP:CORP? if so, how? DES (talk) 02:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope, just wondering if this passes WP:CORP. My decision now is to delete. Epicgenius (talk) 02:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Does not pass notability tests.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete does not appear to pass our notability guidelines at this time. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. According to this 2009 record of a legal settlement, the company is actually registered under the Great Sports, Inc., name. They do business under a variety of other names: this BBB listing has the most comprehensive list I've found. These alternate names may help someone find more information and better assess notability - and make the article's coverage more accurate. I'm finding mostly reviews, myself, so putting the info here for those with a better handle on business searches. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This article is about the ecommerce website, not its parent company. If Great Sports were itself a notable company, Safer Wholesale would still not stand up to AfD but may warrant a small mention on the parent company's page. I looked quickly, and "great sports" is an admittedly difficult search to judge by ghits, but from what I can tell there are none for the company other than promo/selfpubs, reviews of products, etc., which are the same issues that I and others noted above. If the page existed and we merged this page into it, it would still not survive AfD. Still delete. Ivanvector (talk) 18:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory of every company in the US. Must have real sources. Speciate (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Being listed on Alexa does not automatically make companies notable. Search results are largely repetitive, most of these being catalogues. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. hmssolent \You rang? ship's log 02:10, 18 December 2013 (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.