200:. In particluar the company "Littlewoods" has simular content expressing views, such as "However, Littlewoods' home shopping operation continues to be one of the biggest players in the UK market". I would very much like to keep this aricle. Obviously it is not against Knowledge policies to give details of companies otherwise there wouldn't be the above category. So please could you (rather than delete the article) give me guidance on what I should remove to make it acceptable? I have now removed the quotation Bugwit gave above
296:
have been in the press but because of the reason. My main concern is that my article now, is not that different to the others in the above category, but has been singled out for deletion. I have bought many pairs of glasses from this company and have recently found
Knowledge as a very good resource of information, I wanted to share my cost savings with other people. I am also trying to understand Knowledge's policies for article writing which currently seem a bit hit & miss.
295:
Littlewoods was a bad example, take SysWear or
Dorothy_Perkins, both these articles (there are many others) seem self promoting to me with little other content. I tried to add notability to my aritcle by giving examples of where Glassesdirect had been in the press (now removed), not just because they
219:
I find it quite strange that this article can be found "promotional & unencyclopdic", when there are 20+ others in the category above that have "very" similar content. I would probably agree with you and say delete myself if these articles were also put up for deletion. Could anyone explain to
122:. There is always the temptation, when presented with the fact of the existence of articles on similar companies (notwithstanding suggestions that they are distinguishable from the subject of this article), to suggest that those articles be deleted as well, but, in view of
115:
and nomination (although I think Bugwit is correct to acknoweldge that the author has tried to edit the article in order that it should conform to WP norms ; whatever may be the improvements to the article, though, the subject remains
76:, but still appears to be promoting the site rather than providing encyclopedic information. No apparent assertion notability other than the belief of the owner that "his company has revolutionised the way Britons buy their glasses".
338:, I have a lot to learn when writing articles for Knowledge, but this experience has given me a good understanding on how not to do it :) Thanks for you time, it is exactly what I wanted to get across
266:
does not seem to have any assertion of notability. I would agree that the quote you use above could be rewritten so as not to sound promotional, but beyond that, the
258:
has several assumptions of notability, such as the fact that they have been in business since 1923, and that they have a collection in the
126:, which appears to reflect a consensus, I think this article and the others to which posters allude below is about a notable company.
17:
283:
236:
98:
374:
36:
373:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
259:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
352:
322:
287:
214:
188:
171:
130:
102:
56:
73:
270:
article is pretty much indisputable. Would it be safe to assume that you have a vested interest in
224:
310:
guideline (which specifically includes national newspaper articles as being acceptable), keeping a
271:
263:
163:
62:
53:
318:
sources. I think it does meet the various criteria now. (But then I would say that, wouldn't I?).
339:
297:
251:
228:
201:
211:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
279:
232:
94:
197:
311:
307:
149:
123:
112:
49:
72:
as advertisement. Author has made several good-faith attempts to rewrite the article
181:
127:
349:
335:
319:
315:
275:
267:
255:
185:
90:
86:
196:- this article is very simular to many of the articles found on the page
118:
In view of the commendable editing by Sliggy, I'm changing this vote to
367:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
198:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:UK_retail_company_stubs
144:
the rewrite - which is a big improvement (but still has
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
377:). No further edits should be made to this page.
306:. I rewrote the article to attempt to meet the
8:
348:My pleasure, I enjoyed the challenge.
7:
24:
220:me the difference between them?
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
44:The result of the debate was
210:promotional, unencyclopedic
394:
353:00:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
323:23:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
288:22:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
215:21:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
189:20:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
172:20:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
131:19:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
103:19:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
57:14:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
370:Please do not modify it.
260:National Football Museum
32:Please do not modify it.
148:crystal ball aspects)
312:neutral point of view
74:(see discussion here)
308:corporate notability
180:as non-notable per
286:
262:, among others.
241:
227:comment added by
101:
81:Changing vote to
385:
372:
278:
240:
221:
169:
166:
161:
158:
155:
152:
93:
34:
393:
392:
388:
387:
386:
384:
383:
382:
381:
375:deletion review
368:
222:
167:
164:
159:
156:
153:
150:
66:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
391:
389:
380:
379:
362:
360:
359:
358:
357:
356:
355:
343:
342:
326:
325:
314:and providing
293:
292:
291:
290:
243:
242:
217:
205:
191:
146:
145:
133:
105:
65:
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
390:
378:
376:
371:
365:
364:
363:
354:
351:
347:
346:
345:
344:
341:
337:
333:
330:
329:
328:
327:
324:
321:
317:
313:
309:
305:
302:
301:
300:
299:
289:
285:
281:
277:
273:
272:Glassesdirect
269:
265:
264:Glassesdirect
261:
257:
253:
250:
247:
246:
245:
244:
238:
234:
230:
226:
218:
216:
213:
209:
206:
203:
199:
195:
192:
190:
187:
183:
179:
176:
175:
174:
173:
170:
162:
143:
140:
138:
134:
132:
129:
125:
121:
117:
116:non-notable).
114:
110:
109:Strong delete
106:
104:
100:
96:
92:
88:
85:per edits by
84:
80:
79:
78:
77:
75:
71:
64:
63:Glassesdirect
61:
59:
58:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
369:
366:
361:
334:- Thank you
331:
303:
294:
248:
223:— Preceding
212:Tom Harrison
207:
193:
177:
147:
141:
136:
135:
119:
108:
107:
82:
69:
68:
67:
45:
43:
31:
28:
268:Littlewoods
256:Littlewoods
139:as per nom.
316:verifiable
284:scribbles
142:Weak Keep
120:weak keep
99:scribbles
50:Johnleemk
237:contribs
225:unsigned
332:Comment
249:Comment
124:WP:CORP
113:WP:CORP
350:Sliggy
340:Jiff78
336:Sliggy
320:Sliggy
298:Jiff78
276:Bugwit
252:Jiff78
229:Jiff78
208:Delete
202:Jiff78
194:Retain
186:Ifnord
178:Delete
137:Delete
91:Bugwit
87:Sliggy
70:Delete
280:grunt
95:grunt
16:<
304:Keep
274:? --
233:talk
111:per
83:Keep
54:Talk
46:keep
182:Joe
160:493
128:Joe
282:/
254:,
239:)
235:•
184:.
168:lk
165:Ta
157:ns
154:yo
151:Dl
97:/
89:.
52:|
48:.
231:(
204:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.