Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eluxury

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. The only substantial argument for keeping it - the coverage - has been convincingly dismissed by Night Gyr and Brian. Sandstein 21:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eluxury

Eluxury (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

No indication of meeting WP:WEB, our notability guideline for websites. Lacks sources. Deprodded ages ago. Kchase T 06:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Big improvement!. My nomination has been rendered moot, as this now has a ton of sources, including plenty of non-trivial coverage to meet any notability guideline.--Kchase T 03:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with LVMH article.--Folksong 06:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• I do not think this should be merged with the LVMH article, as eLUXURY is one of LVMH's brands, and (almost) all of the company's different brands have their own article (Veuve Clicquot, Louis Vuitton, etc.). LVMH's other main online site, Sephora, has its own article, so I don't see why eLUXURY shouldn't have its own article as well. The article has been updated in regards to its founding, advertising methods, design, and competition, so I think it should no longer be marked for deletion. -- Vincentanton 02:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The strong smell of free advertising overpowers any small information content. WMMartin 17:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Despite the apparently large number of links used, only one independent source provides substantial coverage of the subject as the primary focus. Many links don't even mention the subject, and are solely about competitor LuxLook, a subject that itself doesn't seem to have demonstrable notability. Other links concern fraudulent practices of 180solutions of which eLUXURY is only referred to as an example target, which is at best a peripheral topic to discuss. One link is an Epinions review, which doesn't qualify as a reliable source. Nothing in the article seems salvageable for a merge. Dancter 18:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep with serious revisions. I tend to agree with the notion that significant brands should have a presence on Wikipedia. However, there are aspects of this article that bother me. The Design section: Web-site design is an ephemera unless it represents an innovation or a unique and notable achievement; for instance, if the site were the first to use the 3D-rendering to enhance the shopping experience (which is not noted) or if it was the first 'mini-boutique' to capture the public's attention (which is not noted). The Advertising section: the method and extent that a site is advertised is not in itself sufficiently notable for inclusion; further, the types of advertising employed on the site are not in themselves notable, and are additionally ephemera. The Competition section: this section maintains a thread of comparison to LuxLook.com and does not place eLuxury in an industry context, which a well composed 'competition' section should, unless these are the only two major recognized players in the specified retail domain ... which they are not or at least which is not stated. The Brands section: there should be mention here of the role that the site plays (or used to play) as an outlet for the parent company, which should likely be transplanted to here from the opening paragraph. In summary: get rid of or whittle to line-items the Design and Advertising sections, enhance the competition section and place the brands section in context and it might lose the 'aroma of salesmanship' as another commenter alluded to. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 15:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete, nonstandard link formatting hides the fact that most of the links are press releases or not directly about the site, running up against WP:WEB Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete still smacks of Advertising. The links are still just copies (or direct) press releases. They are not articles only and souly about the website and are not written by reliable independent third party sources (since press releases are written by the company). The site does NOT pass WP:WEB, the information does not pass WP:RS. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 19:51, 8 December 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.