931:
articles that appear on the internet means
Knowledge doesn't use the same stringent criteria that a traditional encyclopedia does and is therefore less valuable. Shop Direct TV is in almost as many homes as Shop NBC. Why not ask their affiliate relations to send you modified copies of their coverage agreements with these cable systems. SHOP DIRECT TV has MORE followers on Twitter then Shop NBC seeming to indicate greater public following. It exists as surely as Bran in the link I set above exists yet also lacks the publicity. Other then a simple and in my opinion totally out of context quoting of guidelines no reasonable argument for deletion has been made.
1132:
impact? A real scholarly approach would be to obtain coverage agreements for the
Network, etc to establish it's penetration into the American household. But where your argument is really questionable is about publicity. Everything is paid publicity. How do you think articles end up in trade papers and magazines? You pay a publicist. The publicist in turns spends money, inviting journalists to lunch etc. I can go through Knowledge and delete just about every article based on the no paid publicity clause. Regarding the location example you state
741:. The reference included in the article to rightview consultancy does not represent significant coverage in a reliable source. I will consider any other sources brought forward. The company is literally been in operation for only one year at this point. I have no objections ot recreation in the future if they grow and gain coverage, but at this point, it really does appear that it is too soon to have an article about this company. --
292:(admittedly, I should have to linked to that in my nomination). Basically, topics must have received enough coverage in reliable sources (books, reputable websites, newspapers, etc.) before they can have their own Knowledge articles. In addition, topics are assessed for this without regard to the notability of other similar topics (in this case, QVC and other home shopping networks).
1261:. In fact I could not find any independent coverage at all. The channel is only 1 year old, and is available to fewer than 40 million households (some of those part time), and that may be why it has not attracted more attention. As it grows it may become more notable. It could be recreated in the future, if (and ONLY if) reliable source coverage becomes available. --
238:
them any less worthy of an article. I've watched Shop Direct for nearly 2 years now as I've been fed-up with mall shopping. They are also a local company that supports our economy. The article may need to be improved but I believe it highly unfair for it to be deleted. I am here if you have any questions. Thank you! Categories (++): (+)
1004:, a section of the notability guideline, explains this: "the absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable". As can be seen in a quick search, the commune of Bran appears to be notable because of the presence of sources like
798:
It does not make reference to the year it was founded. The
Knowledge Article states <<Shop Direct TV was founded in November 2011 by Shop Direct Corporation which began leasing television time from local cable systems in 2007 extensively promoting its own in-house programming and products.:
366:
And most importantly, is the internet the only source of publicity? How many television stations and trade papers have covered Shop Direct TV? To say that a US cable television network shouldn't be included but all of it's competitors should be makes
Knowledge an e-zine not an unbias encyclopedia!
360:
My reaction to the above discussion is that you are saying that an article should only be covered on
Knowledge if it has purchased substantial publicity. Yes, purchased because that is actually how it works. If that is this case, Knowledge isn't an encyclopedia on everything, it is only reporting on
237:
Hi. Thanks you for your thoughts. I think that it would be odd if not unfair if all the other home shopping networks have pages on
Knowledge but Shop Direct does not. They may not have the funding that the larger networks have behind them to have all the publicity you refer to but that does not make
603:
Thank you very much poster above. I now (think I) understand regarding citing those publications and that is very helpful. I will get started on that now then. I also found an online trade article should I add that right to the main article, here on this page or also using a template like the one
1194:
I don't understand your complaint about the relisting. An administrator relisted the discussion to generate more discussion and get more input, and somebody used the opportunity to post their opinion. I don't see what is wrong with this; regardless of the poster's stance, the goal of relisting,
1131:
That my friend is about as bias as you get. You are telling me about bias but it looks like Shop Direct on the receiving end of it. Though your argument is against Shop Direct's inclusion the context of your comments tends to perfectly support it. Who are you to say the
Network hasn't made an
930:
and in doing so demeans the entire concept of the internet and
Knowledge. This is certainly not why I donated money during two of Knowledge's appeals. I was told this was a source for UNbiased, full and complete information. Denying part of history because it hasn't paid the press or isn't in
361:
the big corporations. I believe the debate around this article puts the entire legitimacy of
Knowledge in discussion. Does Knowledge exist to give a leg up to the Fortune 500? Does Pepsi deserve an article but Shasta does not because one has substantially more publicity then the other?
1210:, for example. Next, the "rubbish" Stalwart111 refers to is tourism guides and the like, but the references he added to the Bran article are from published books which show that the commune has historical significance. I have no objection to an article on another shopping network
925:
since the page has been up almost since the founding of
Knowledge and not one single source has been provided all this time. There is no getting around it -- challenging the validity of this article makes Knowledge little more then a service for those who purchase P.R. or
755:
Please re-read, The Company has not been in business for one year. The Company took the on-air name Shop Direct about one year ago. I have begun the work of ordering trade papers for larger publications to cite. Reliable sources wil be provides hortly.
982:. As for your other comments, they are way off base. The policies and guidelines that Knowledge use are noted above and have been formed by community consensus. If you believe that they should be changed, you are welcome to propose changes at the
795:
I am not familiar with any article that states that. The article I found from rightview does not state that. It states <<Shop Direct TV Inc. took on the on-air moniker Shop Direct TV late last year in a bid to establish Network identity. :
408:
801:
I believe you may be referring to this unless there is some other article I am missing. The Knowledge Entry states the Company was founded in 2007. The confusion may be that prior to November 2011 programs were presented by '"Shop Direct
1005:
1036:
In addition, it needs to be made clear that any purchased publicity is discounted when assessing notability, as noted in the general notability guideline. Even if Shop Direct TV had purchased publicity pieces, this would do
173:
1180:, perhaps your time could be spent in sourcing the article? Eight days ago, you stated above that you were working on getting more sources. Since then, not a single source has been presented. --
1199:
and adequate sources have not been presented. Again, it's all there; just find some sources meeting all those requirements and you'll save the article. That's all I'm trying to get across.
986:. I'll also note that the reason for deletion is the lack of coverage in any reliable source, and as such, I doubt any traditional encyclopedia would have included this company either. --
777:
I did read the article. It states "Shop Direct TV was founded in November 2011..." which makes it one year. Of course, we have no sources so none of the information in the article is
126:
340:
167:
208:
on Google News, News archives, and Books only turn up stuff from before its founding). Was previously speedied as G11; re-creator's argument for keeping appears to be
411:, whereas the SDTV article is not. Knowledge was never supposed to be an "encyclopedia on everything", just on topics deemed suitable for inclusion (I refer here to
1008:(this is the case with the vast majority of settlements). Assuming that you are the same poster as the IP from last week, it has already been explained to you that:
320:
1232:
1055:
704:
644:
589:
575:
might be able to help. If you can make citations for those trade papers manually or with the template, I can do the work of asking around the resource exchange.
526:
469:
437:
306:
226:
1092:; books about the subject's place in history rather than the normal tourist rubbish we see being used as references for place articles. It was unsourced because
1027:
Remaining truly unbiased requires the exclusion of some topics which have not made an impact. Although it speaks to this concept in terms of article content,
407:, but the difference between Shasta's article and Shop Direct TV's article is that Shasta's article is substantiated by independent reliable sources such as
1214:
reliable sources show that it meets Knowledge's notability guideline. This does not appear to be the case with Shop Direct TV. Also, it was you who stated
974:- You are free to nominate other articles for deletion if they do not meet Knowledge's inclusion criteria. However, you should be aware that doing so
1093:
572:
133:
1195:
generating more input, was achieved. And yes, perhaps "made an impact" was not the best choice of words on my part, but I keep pointing you to
420:
289:
273:
254:
1136:
It is exactly the same thing. Bran is a town. Shop Direct TV is a channel. It seems both lack a lot of web site references or as you put it
419:, a guideline). Your idea that sources should be considered valid even if they are unavailable on the internet is completely true by the
423:. If you can provide citations to print or other offline sources, then you could provide a compelling argument for keeping the article.
1228:
1216:"Other then a simple and in my opinion totally out of context quoting of guidelines no reasonable argument for deletion has been made"
1051:
700:
640:
585:
522:
465:
433:
302:
222:
99:
94:
1134:
Other then a simple and in my opinion totally out of context quoting of guidelines no reasonable argument for deletion has been made.
1155:
952:
938:
403:
No, if Shop Direct TV has not made an impact, then we are in fact remaining unbiased by excluding it. Shasta, the example you gave,
103:
960:
833:
763:
676:
611:
549:
490:
396:
374:
277:
1148:
I kind of get the feeling that everything be darned, you just don't like another shopping channel having a page on Knowledge.
388:
86:
17:
483:
is a constructive one. What specifically needs to be located as far as substantiating articles in order to save this entry?
188:
571:
is probably the easiest way; you just copy the template and enter the correct parameters. As for reviewing them, someone at
155:
1219:
1042:
691:
631:
576:
513:
456:
424:
293:
213:
1084:
argument for keeping this article. After 10 minutes of looking and with minimal effort I managed to add three sources to
690:
No, a following on Twitter has no bearing on notability. (I'm unsure if Rightview Consultancy is a reliable source.)
269:
250:
512:. If you can locate sources meeting all those requirements, then you have a very good shot at saving the article.
1289:
40:
149:
1015:
1270:
1237:
1189:
1163:
1159:
1060:
995:
956:
946:
942:
911:
878:
790:
771:
750:
709:
684:
649:
594:
557:
531:
498:
474:
442:
382:
352:
332:
311:
265:
258:
246:
231:
145:
68:
540:
THe above link provided (thank you) states <<Sources are not required to be available online, : -->
480:
452:
392:
90:
1285:
1106:
904:
872:
568:
36:
195:
1151:
1123:-Yes, I am the same poster as before. I can't help be notice how one of your editors wisely put in a
1081:
934:
837:
829:
767:
759:
680:
672:
615:
607:
553:
545:
494:
486:
378:
370:
242:
209:
57:
1218:, making reference to Shop Direct TV; it was not Stalwart111, Whpq, or me making reference to Bran.
82:
74:
1140:
by other people who also post their own content online just like Knowledge. And it seems like that
891:
733:- I can find no significant coverage about this company that establishes that it meets Knowledge's
404:
181:
542:
so if I scan some articles from trade papers, magazines how do I submit them for review? Thanks.
1266:
348:
328:
64:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1284:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1101:
978:
is frowned upon, and you will need to register an account in order to finish nominations to
899:
867:
855:
161:
1028:
975:
666:
I am still searching online and moving onto trade publications/print. Expect results soon.
451:
A note to the closing administrator: comments regarding notability have also been made at
412:
1085:
669:
Do you volume of Twitter followers have value at Knowledge for establishing notoriety?
1254:
1185:
1001:
991:
786:
746:
738:
53:
1262:
1196:
1177:
979:
734:
509:
1258:
1089:
983:
895:
344:
324:
60:
120:
1097:
778:
416:
921:- Based on this logic, I will compile other pages that have to be deleted like
659:
858:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
1181:
987:
782:
742:
1127:
for this article but the response immediately to his or her action was
1000:
An article shouldn't necessarily be deleted because it has no sources.
922:
212:
based on his edit summary (to his credit, it is now more neutral).
1204:
288:
Lack of publicity could indeed mean that Shop Direct TV fails the
1278:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1259:
significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources
826:
That is something that can/should be clarified in the entry.
116:
112:
108:
567:
You wouldn't need to scan them, just cite them. Using
180:
1024:
A following on Twitter has no bearing on notability;
865:
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
898:are found but at the moment it should probably go.
808:
but the broadcasting network is nearly 5 years old.
1144:for travel locations establishes the location has
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1292:). No further edits should be made to this page.
341:list of Television-related deletion discussions
1016:Knowledge is not an encyclopedia on everything
321:list of Business-related deletion discussions
194:
8:
339:Note: This debate has been included in the
319:Note: This debate has been included in the
1096:, not because the home town of "Dracula's"
660:http://www.rightviewconsultancy.com/?p=1522
827:
605:
338:
318:
1021:Offline sources are perfectly acceptable;
923:http://en.wikipedia.org/Bran,_Bra%C5%9Fov
804:and in 2011 the programming feed became
1257:. I could not find any of the required
573:Knowledge:WikiProject Resource Exchange
658:Here's the first reference I found --
630:add it as a reference in the article.
204:Non-notable corporation (searches for
56:and no arguments presented other than
7:
626:It would be best to link to it here
1178:accusing other editors of bad faith
890:- would seem to quite clearly fail
508:The specific criteria can be read
455:and should be taken into account.
24:
894:. Worth reconsidering if further
739:specific guidelines for companies
1197:the general notability guideline
1205:the references for the article
1094:Knowledge is a work in progress
1074:- I think you picked about the
1041:to make them any more notable.
604:mentioned above? Thanks again.
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1201:"Everything is paid publicity"
1080:of an unsourced article as an
1:
1271:23:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
1238:20:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
1190:10:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
1164:09:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
1061:23:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
996:14:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
947:13:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
912:23:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
879:23:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
791:23:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
772:21:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
751:15:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
710:22:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
685:12:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
650:21:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
595:20:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
558:09:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
532:00:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
499:22:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
475:18:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
443:18:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
383:17:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
353:07:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
333:07:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
312:17:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
259:22:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
232:22:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
1113:00:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC
290:general notability guideline
69:13:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
735:gernal inclusion guidelines
1309:
421:reliable sources guideline
1281:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
1077:worst possible example
961:few or no other edits
569:Template:Cite journal
397:few or no other edits
278:few or no other edits
976:just to make a point
963:outside this topic.
399:outside this topic.
280:outside this topic.
1253:Not notable, fails
481:Talk:Shop Direct TV
453:Talk:Shop Direct TV
1236:
1154:comment added by
1059:
1031:is relevant here.
964:
937:comment added by
881:
841:
832:comment added by
762:comment added by
708:
675:comment added by
648:
619:
610:comment added by
593:
548:comment added by
530:
489:comment added by
473:
441:
400:
373:comment added by
355:
335:
310:
281:
262:
245:comment added by
230:
1300:
1283:
1226:
1224:
1166:
1110:
1100:is non-notable.
1090:reliable sources
1049:
1047:
950:
949:
908:
896:reliable sources
875:
870:
864:
860:
774:
698:
696:
687:
638:
636:
583:
581:
560:
520:
518:
501:
463:
461:
431:
429:
415:, a policy, and
386:
385:
300:
298:
266:JohnRogersJacobs
263:
261:
247:JohnRogersJacobs
239:
220:
218:
206:"shop direct tv"
199:
198:
184:
136:
124:
106:
34:
1308:
1307:
1303:
1302:
1301:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1290:deletion review
1279:
1220:
1176:- Rather than
1149:
1146:made an impact.
1108:
1043:
932:
906:
873:
868:
853:
757:
692:
670:
632:
577:
543:
514:
484:
479:The comment at
457:
425:
368:
294:
240:
214:
141:
132:
97:
81:
78:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1306:
1304:
1295:
1294:
1274:
1273:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1192:
1168:
1167:
1115:
1114:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1025:
1022:
1019:
1010:
1009:
998:
966:
965:
915:
914:
884:
883:
882:
862:
861:
850:
849:
848:
847:
846:
845:
844:
843:
842:
817:
816:
815:
814:
813:
812:
811:
810:
806:Shop Direct TV
737:, or the more
727:
726:
725:
724:
723:
722:
721:
720:
719:
718:
717:
716:
715:
714:
713:
712:
667:
663:
662:
653:
652:
621:
620:
598:
597:
562:
561:
535:
534:
503:
502:
477:
448:
447:
446:
445:
405:has an article
363:
362:
357:
356:
336:
316:
315:
314:
283:
282:
202:
201:
138:
83:Shop Direct TV
77:
75:Shop Direct TV
72:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1305:
1293:
1291:
1287:
1282:
1276:
1275:
1272:
1268:
1264:
1260:
1256:
1252:
1249:
1248:
1239:
1234:
1230:
1225:
1223:
1217:
1213:
1209:
1208:
1202:
1198:
1193:
1191:
1187:
1183:
1179:
1175:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1165:
1161:
1157:
1153:
1147:
1143:
1139:
1135:
1130:
1126:
1122:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1112:
1111:
1105:
1104:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1087:
1083:
1082:WP:OTHERSTUFF
1079:
1078:
1073:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1062:
1057:
1053:
1048:
1046:
1040:
1035:
1030:
1026:
1023:
1020:
1017:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1007:
1003:
999:
997:
993:
989:
985:
981:
977:
973:
970:
969:
968:
967:
962:
958:
954:
948:
944:
940:
936:
929:
924:
920:
917:
916:
913:
910:
909:
903:
902:
897:
893:
889:
886:
885:
880:
877:
876:
871:
863:
859:
857:
852:
851:
839:
835:
831:
825:
824:
823:
822:
821:
820:
819:
818:
809:
805:
794:
793:
792:
788:
784:
780:
776:
775:
773:
769:
765:
761:
754:
753:
752:
748:
744:
740:
736:
732:
729:
728:
711:
706:
702:
697:
695:
689:
688:
686:
682:
678:
674:
668:
665:
664:
661:
657:
656:
655:
654:
651:
646:
642:
637:
635:
629:
625:
624:
623:
622:
617:
613:
609:
602:
601:
600:
599:
596:
591:
587:
582:
580:
574:
570:
566:
565:
564:
563:
559:
555:
551:
547:
539:
538:
537:
536:
533:
528:
524:
519:
517:
511:
507:
506:
505:
504:
500:
496:
492:
488:
482:
478:
476:
471:
467:
462:
460:
454:
450:
449:
444:
439:
435:
430:
428:
422:
418:
414:
410:
406:
402:
401:
398:
394:
390:
384:
380:
376:
372:
365:
364:
359:
358:
354:
350:
346:
342:
337:
334:
330:
326:
322:
317:
313:
308:
304:
299:
297:
291:
287:
286:
285:
284:
279:
275:
271:
267:
260:
256:
252:
248:
244:
236:
235:
234:
233:
228:
224:
219:
217:
211:
210:WP:OTHERSTUFF
207:
197:
193:
190:
187:
183:
179:
175:
172:
169:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
147:
144:
143:Find sources:
139:
135:
131:
128:
122:
118:
114:
110:
105:
101:
96:
92:
88:
84:
80:
79:
76:
73:
71:
70:
66:
62:
59:
58:WP:OTHERSTUFF
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1280:
1277:
1250:
1221:
1215:
1211:
1206:
1200:
1173:
1150:— Preceding
1145:
1141:
1137:
1133:
1128:
1124:
1120:
1107:
1102:
1086:Bran, Braşov
1076:
1075:
1071:
1044:
1038:
984:Village Pump
971:
933:— Preceding
928:the big boys
927:
918:
905:
900:
892:WP:CORPDEPTH
887:
866:
854:
828:— Preceding
807:
803:
758:— Preceding
730:
693:
671:— Preceding
633:
627:
606:— Preceding
578:
544:— Preceding
515:
485:— Preceding
458:
426:
369:— Preceding
295:
241:— Preceding
215:
205:
203:
191:
185:
177:
170:
164:
158:
152:
142:
129:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1156:92.85.24.49
1098:Bran Castle
1088:- all from
959:) has made
953:92.85.24.49
939:92.85.24.49
802:Corporation
395:) has made
276:) has made
168:free images
1203:—no. Take
834:92.85.4.95
764:92.85.4.95
677:92.85.4.95
612:92.85.4.95
550:92.85.4.95
491:92.85.4.95
375:92.85.4.95
1286:talk page
389:92.5.4.95
37:talk page
1288:or in a
1263:MelanieN
1152:unsigned
1121:Response
1103:Stalwart
1072:Response
1029:WP:UNDUE
1006:this one
935:unsigned
901:Stalwart
856:Relisted
830:unsigned
779:verified
760:unsigned
673:unsigned
608:unsigned
546:unsigned
487:unsigned
413:WP:IINFO
371:unsigned
274:contribs
255:contribs
243:unsigned
127:View log
52:- fails
39:or in a
1255:WP:CORP
1142:rubbish
1138:rubbish
1039:nothing
1002:WP:NRVE
972:Comment
919:Comment
874:polisme
345:Frankie
325:Frankie
174:WP refs
162:scholar
100:protect
95:history
61:SmartSE
54:WP:CORP
1251:Delete
1129:Delete
1125:relist
888:Delete
731:Delete
146:Google
104:delete
50:Delete
1207:Plant
1174:Reply
800:: -->
797:: -->
781:. --
541:: -->
189:JSTOR
150:books
134:Stats
121:views
113:watch
109:links
16:<
1267:talk
1186:talk
1182:Whpq
1160:talk
992:talk
988:Whpq
957:talk
943:talk
869:Theo
838:talk
787:talk
783:Whpq
768:talk
747:talk
743:Whpq
681:talk
616:talk
554:talk
510:here
495:talk
417:WP:N
409:this
393:talk
379:talk
349:talk
343:. —
329:talk
323:. —
270:talk
251:talk
182:FENS
156:news
117:logs
91:talk
87:edit
65:talk
1222:CtP
1109:111
1045:CtP
980:AFD
907:111
799:-->
796:-->
694:CtP
634:CtP
628:and
579:CtP
516:CtP
459:CtP
427:CtP
296:CtP
216:CtP
196:TWL
125:– (
1269:)
1231:•
1212:if
1188:)
1162:)
1054:•
994:)
951:—
945:)
840:)
789:)
770:)
749:)
703:•
683:)
643:•
618:)
588:•
556:)
525:•
497:)
468:•
436:•
387:—
381:)
351:)
331:)
305:•
272:•
264:—
257:)
253:•
225:•
176:)
119:|
115:|
111:|
107:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
67:)
1265:(
1235:)
1233:c
1229:t
1227:(
1184:(
1158:(
1058:)
1056:c
1052:t
1050:(
1018:;
990:(
955:(
941:(
836:(
785:(
766:(
745:(
707:)
705:c
701:t
699:(
679:(
647:)
645:c
641:t
639:(
614:(
592:)
590:c
586:t
584:(
552:(
529:)
527:c
523:t
521:(
493:(
472:)
470:c
466:t
464:(
440:)
438:c
434:t
432:(
391:(
377:(
347:(
327:(
309:)
307:c
303:t
301:(
268:(
249:(
229:)
227:c
223:t
221:(
200:)
192:·
186:·
178:·
171:·
165:·
159:·
153:·
148:(
140:(
137:)
130:·
123:)
85:(
63:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.