Talk:Discount Tire Company

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Cars Portal This article is within the scope of Wikipedia Project Automobiles, a collective approach to creating a comprehensive guide to the world of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you are encouraged to visit the project page, where you can contribute to the discussion.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Promotional page

This is about the most promotional article I have seen on Wikipedia. It is just about pure advertising, and a corruption of the purpose of Wikipedia. Expect a visit from admins soon, who will probably suggest you either quote a LOT of sources to justify your glowing claims or delete the article altogether. See WP:AfD Rumiton 10:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Revision on 22:31, 21 August 2007 by User:Mr.Z-man reverted article to the last non-advert version — CZmarlin 17:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I am writing this letter in regards to the deletion of Discount Tire's wikipedia article today and the comment you made back in July. I would like to know why you think this article was deleted. There wasn't to much detail given except for blatant advertising. I, of course, want to meet Wikipedia's standards and I just want to know what sections of the article were more of an advertisement then factual information. If you can provide the answer to this question it would be very much appreciated. The last thing I want to do is make the same mistakes when I decide to post a new article for Discount Tire. Thank you very much!! Jlsathomas 15:27, 22 August 2007

I posted this answer on my Talk Page but perhaps it wasn't seen. Here it is again.

Hello. The main requirement, as you say, is that Wiki articles show a neutral point of view (NPOV.) This means that only concrete statements are allowed, not emotional statements, and even concrete facts need references to "respected sources" to be unchallengeable. "Primary sources" ie the company itself, are generally not acceptable; you have to quote what some other source, eg a trade magazine, government research office or scholar, wrote about the subject. (I suspect that the main problem with your article was that sourced and unsourced statements were interwoven in a way that might make untangling them unfeasible.)

For example when you write "Discount Tire Company is the world's largest independent tire and wheel retailer," that is a fact that can be independently sourced, provided that words like independent and retailer don't provide problems. (They might.) You would need to find a reputable source that says exactly what you have written. But when you write "His philosophy has remained consistent..." you are getting into the emotional and unprovable areas. If an independent source could be found who says something like "According to the ITC Terms of Employment, 1960, employees were expected to... and in 2007 the same terms were applied, reflecting a continuity of standards" you could use the statement. Otherwise it is unprovable. The Wiki term for this is cruft or even worse, spam. Even neutral sentences that refer perhaps to the size of the company need supporting references, again preferably not from primary sources.

Phrases like "offering them service that reflects the skill and knowledge of our employees" are not only unprovable, but essentially meaningless, as are assertions like "Discount Tire Company has a vision that not only lives, but thrives, in the hearts of its employees, each and every day."

When you say "Building customer relationships has allowed Discount Tire to become a leader in the industry" who says so? Someone else might claim the company got ahead by pork barrelling or uncompetitive practises (I live in Australia and know nothing about the company, I am just pointing out what can be alleged.)

"Its continual growth not only provides greater opportunities for employee advancement, but allows even more customers to remain confident when choosing Discount Tire for all of their tire and wheel needs." Do I need to go on? This is advertising, not encyclopedic research.

One thing to consider when writing is "How might a competitor or a disgruntled ex-employee respond to this article?" Remember they will have the same editing rights that you have. If you write with meticulous neutrality and respect for sources you might, among other things, save yourself a time-consuming and harrowing edit war down the line.

Good luck with future attempts. Rumiton 13:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Rumiton 06:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)