Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thefurniture.com

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 — Caknuck 23:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thefurniture.com

Thefurniture.com (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Contested speedy. Non-notable website. Fails to meet WP:WEB. None of the sources are independent reliable sources. Evb-wiki 16:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - I have been trying to write this article for three days now and thought that I reached a consensus. I wrote it in an encyclopedic manner, showed that the company is notable (because it is an internet-based company and has survived for 6 years which is a long time by online standards) and provided reliable sources (that were simply used to present statistics). Even if the sources are considered biased the information they present is not. For instance, Google checkout case study was used for information regarding 18 full-time and 18 part-time employees. That fact is undeniable, whether Google likes or dislikes the company. Dmcnabb5 16:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - From the article: "The current domain name was acquired in 2005, but the parent company, SpektorUSA, has been doing business online since 2001. Over the past two years, the revenue has jumped 630%." Thefurniture.com is only 2 years old. The parent company is 6. press releases are not independent sources and neither is the company's president. --Evb-wiki 16:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - The company is not two years old because they were selling furniture under SpektorUSA as well. They simply changed their domain name. However, the ownership and employees of the company remained the same. So, it is 6 years old. If Wikipedia changed its name it wouldn't change its headquarters. It would still be the same company and would be however old it is now. Please understand that it's not just the source but also what the source is saying. It doesn't matter what the source thinks of the company, you cannot make up numbers regarding employment figures. If it has 36 employees, that's that. Dmcnabb5 16:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Very weak delete, with regrets. This article has been on a bit of a roller coaster ride. I originally tagged it for speedy deletion (as I frequently do :-) ), and the author asked for more time and help. I removed my speedy tag and replaced it with an {{underconstruction}} tag, and assisted Dmcnabb5 as best as I could. during this process, two editors completely ignored the {{underconstruction}} tag and the discussion on the talk page and speedy-deleted the article anyway. I had to prevail upon the admin who actually deleted the article to retrieve it and replace it, which he did. Unfortunately, I have come to the conclusion that there are not enough independent, reliable sources with information about the company to prove its notability. I agree that the company has a considerable online presence, first under SpektorUSA and then Thefurniture.com. However, most of the sources cited are simply links to the site itself and its subsidiary sites. The author originally tied notability to the design of the site itself, but unfortunately there is nothing at all unique about its design and functionality — useful, yes, but definitely not unique, as many other online shopping sites are similarly designed and functional. I feared that this effort might might end up being an exercise in futility on my part, but I went on under assume-good-faith principles. Alas, it just didn't work out. If someone can come up with some independent, reliable sources, I will gladly reconsider. But I just can't find any that aren't already in the article. Realkyhick 17:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Marwood 17:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Can you please tell me what you would consider a reliable, independent source. Also, no one seems to address the fact that the information that I use from the sources is not affected by the source's supposed bias. For instance, no one responded to my statement that you can't deny employment figures. Please give me an example of a reliable, independent source and then please give me time to actually find one. If you leave it up for a few days, maybe Wikipedians will add to it and add reliable sources. Deleting it right away doesn't even give the article a chance. It is pretty clear that my intent is simply to inform, and I am obviously making an effort to get the article up to Wikipedia standards. So, please give me a chance to do so. Dmcnabb5 17:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - At least for now, can we agree to put the {{underconstruction}} tag back up and give the article and the author a chance? I can give examples of loads of articles on Wikipedia that have neither sources nor outside links. They are also about subjects that are more trivial than the one I am writing about. There are articles about cities, for instance, that are not notable at all and simply exist. They are not deleted. People are picking apart this article for some reason when I have made a genuine attempt to inform people about a company. Dmcnabb5 17:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Response: There are those who would argue that the level of only 36 employees gives evidence as to lack of notability. Second, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument for keeping an article. We've given you plenty of resources about finding proper independent sources, but you haven't come up with any. I've tried to do so myself using methods I've used countless times, and I have come up with little or nothing as well. We've had the {{underconstruction}} tag up for a while, but we're really not making much progress. Sometimes, a subject simply isn't notable, and the best-written article in the world won't change that. Realkyhick 19:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Response - I thought we agreed that notability rests with the number of years in operation and not in the employees. Therefore, your argument does not relate to the "notability" standpoint. As far as the reliability of sources, I do not understand why press releases are not reliable sources. Also, the {{underconstruction}} tag was up for a day, not a while. What if you give it a week or something, maybe then other users can actually have time to cross the article and contribute to it. Our conversation was finished at about 5 pm eastern time yesterday. The tag was replaced with a deletion request this morning. That hardly constitutes "a while" and is clearly not enough time to gather sources or garner attention from other users who can help. Dmcnabb5 19:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• While press releases can provide some useful information, their content is controlled by the person or company who issues them, and may not always be reliable. I can issue a press release that says that Al Gore is an ax murderer, and it could be published, but it wouldn't be true. (See WP:SP and WP:SPS.) As for number of employees, I meant that some other editors may feel that 36 employees is too small a number. I don't necessarily share that view myself, but I'm not the only judge here. That's the whole point of this discussion. The {{underconstruction}} tag was in place for several days, and others were free (and encouraged) to contribute as well during that time. Realkyhick 19:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Once again, my request is that you look at the content that I am getting from these press releases. It isn't like I'm saying that the site is the most convenient or something. Content like that isn't made up. Like you said, 36 is a relatively small number, so, if the author of the press release wanted to make the company seem better, wouldn't he or she say that it has 300 workers or something? Isn't that more proof towards the fact that the information in the press release is probably credible?? And by the way, press release services have editors who make sure that they are written well and publish information that is suitable for the public. It is sort of like Wikipedia, and they have importance guidelines as well. They do not publish things that are not notable. So, they are alot more reliable than you may think. Dmcnabb5 19:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm a newspaper reporter and editor, so I know all about press releases. They are not necessarily written by professional writers or given a once-over by professional editors. Indeed, that is less and less the case today, as more companies and individuals have tools available to let them distribute press releases easily and cheaply (PRWeb among them). PR companies publish whatever their clients pay them to, adding their professional advice, polish and knowledge of distribution channels, but they are used far less than they were before the Internet came into widespread use. Realkyhick 19:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• You have rebutted my press release comment but not what I wrote above that. The fact that the press release says that a company has few employees is more a testament that it IS telling the truth. Also, don't you agree that the information I used would remain the same regardless of the article bias? If I were discussing attributes, bias would matter. However, statistics are cold, hard facts that cannot be denied. Dmcnabb5 19:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Neither that fact nor any other fact in the article, or in the "sources," establishes that the company is notable. My searches have found nothing more promising. btw - this is a 5-day discussion process. Feel free to try to find notable facts in the mean time. --Evb-wiki 19:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Notability was established by the company's longevity. We have now moved on to a discussion about the sources. Evb-wiki declines the notability, while Realkyhick isn't happy with the sources. That just goes to show that everyone's interpretations are different, and it wouldn't kill you to just leave the article alone. If it isn't interesting, people just won't go on it. However, it could be useful for potential customers to read an objective overview of the company. Can we please settle once and for all whether or not I must prove notability or find better sources? Dmcnabb5 20:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Both! One works toward the other. Finding better sources will prove the company's notability. Realkyhick 20:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Which reminds me, . . . while it may no longer be blatant spam, it is still WP:SPAM. --Evb-wiki 20:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• OK do you honestly believe that any information in this article is wrong? And also, how is it spamming, there is not one positive or negative thing said about the company. Should the Goolge article be deleted because it is also about an online company. Don't rebut this with WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, I know about it and think that that fact alone causes everyone who protests an article to lose jurisdiction. It is hypocrisy to delete some articles and keep others. Dmcnabb5 20:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS means that just because those articles exist doesn't make them notable, it just means an ediors hasn't caught up with them yet. If you see articles about non-notable subjects, you're encouraged to mark them, too. We need all the help we can get. The issue isn't hypocrisy, it's lack of manpower. Realkyhick 20:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• My opinion on that is this: If articles aren't notable, they just won't be accessed or read. Why waste time deleting and arguing over an article if you think it isn't notable. If it's not notable, it won't be accessed and the author is the only one who wasted his or her time. It isn't like there's a problem with space or memory. Wikipedia can have an unlimited amount of articles. I could understand if something was scandalous or blatantly false or offensive. In that case, I am in full agreement that Wikipedians must work together to get rid of it as soon as possible. If it's not notable, however, just let it go. If you think it doesn't matter, others might too and it just won't be read. Is that too far-fetched of a philosophy? Dmcnabb5 20:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• To answer your question as to why deletion occurs due to a lack of notability, it's because Wikipedia isn't a free and open space for whatever content somebody wants to provide. That would be the WWW in general, where anybody who wants (almost) anything up on it can choose to do so. Wikipedia is instead about people collaborating to provide the value of information that's effectively gone through the thresher so to speak. Basically, this is a managed system, as opposed to one of survival of the fittest. IOW, it isn't a problem of storage costs, but rather of information value. Now is this the only way to do things? No, and you can argue for another way, but the appropriate method of doing so is not through this AFD discussion, but rather through convincing the consensus to change in places like the Village Pump. I suppose you could try to change AFD processes one nomination at a time, but I doubt you'd be successful and would probably just end up frustrated. Yes, sometimes notability is mis-used, sometimes it's not the appropriate way to judge something, but it does exist as a standard that has widespread (if not universal) acceptance. FrozenPurpleCube 21:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• I agree, but, like most things, notability is subjective, as I believe it is so in this case. What some people deem important others do not. There are exceptions to the rule, and certain articles should just not be written. However, I do not believe that this article is an exception. It meets a great deal of Wikipedia standards, and it could be argued that it meets all of them (depending on the standpoint). I'm sure you will agree that it is an honest attempt to relay information and not to advertise or maliciously attack anybody. As such, I do not understand why you cannot just leave it alone. Dmcnabb5 21:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

(De-indenting to improve readability). Indeed, notability is a subjective judgment based on highly variable criteria that does not exist solely or even primarily in an objective fashion. However, that doesn't mean it's not a useful, or accepted tool to manage the inclusion or exclusion of articles on Wikipedia. And perhaps you had no bad intent in making this page. This doesn't mean as much as you think. Many well-intentioned people make pages they shouldn't on Wikipedia. In this case though, there is the added concern that having an article provides a commercial value to the existing site(s). That is a bad thing for Wikipedia(as it creates a financial incentive to have a page, which takes neutrality into question), and why in this case, I do not feel you will accomplish your desired goal of having this article kept without adding third-party sources of at least some merit. FrozenPurpleCube 21:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you please explain how it provides a commercial value? I'm sure there are articles about yahoo, or google, or espn. Saying that this article encourages users to go to this site is the same thing as saying that those articles are of commercial value, even though no one is protesting them. So, if commercial value is out of the question, is one or two credible sources the only thing that's keeping this article from staying on Wikipedia? Dmcnabb5 21:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It provides value because it's here on Wikipedia, which is widely recognized as a place to get information. There are even companies that tried to sell their services to get articles on Wikipedia. But Wikipedia desires to be neutral, and not open to the highest bidder, thus the importance that to avoid providing undue commercial benefit for sites such as this one. The difference between this site and yahoo, google, or espn is that a multitude of third-party sources exist to describe each of them. Is this somehow escaping you? I've said this outright before. I notice at least two other editors have. The problem is the lack of acceptable third-party sources. Fix that, and anything else can be addressed in clean-up. FrozenPurpleCube 22:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The assumption that any company becomes notable after a few years of existence, even if it is not larger than an average supermarket, is false. I might be wrong, but it seems not unlikely that the article's creator might be in some relationship with the company. In that case, please read WP:COI. Regards, High on a tree 23:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• To the original author's defense, he claims no connection with the company, and I have no reason to dispute that. Realkyhick 23:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per High. The user so vociferously arguing for keep needs to read WP:ATA, as they use several of them over and over again. VanTucky ^(talk) 00:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Still reads very much like advertising and seems like it is trying to justify its own existance on Wikipedia. ww2censor 03:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable spam. Leuko 06:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• This is for High on a tree, I have no connection to the company. I have heard of them and simply want to write an article about the company, like many before me. Therefore, there is no conflict of interest. Also, the article does not read like an advertisement since Realkyhick personally did me a huge favor and corrected the parts that were not up to snuff (thank you!). He is the only one who looked at it with an open mind, so his opinion of the article is most valid, as he was in contact with me throughout the creation process. I think he can vouch for the fact that I was cooperative and changed the things that needed changing, including the parts that read as advertisement. Therefore, I am not interested in promoting the company and definitely have no affiliation with it. Dmcnabb5 12:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• I can vouch for that. Dmcnabb5 has been very cooperative through this process. This is his first attempt at an article, so I am sure he's learned a lot. I think many of us went through a similar situation our first time out. I think he saw a web site — actually, a group of them — that seemed to have an interesting take on selling furniture online. Unfortunately, it wasn't really unique or notable (yet). Oh well, we catch our breath, pick ourselves up and live to write again. Realkyhick 05:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No independent sources to establish notability. Still reads like an advert. Cap'n Walker 21:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established in line with WP:ORG. A company this small really needs the multiple, independent reliable sources. Nuttah68 10:23, 12 August 2007 (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.