Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AutoAnything (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus, default to keep. After two weeks of discussion, I doubt we're converging towards any particular consensus. The previous AfD was 5 years ago (and the article in its current form talks about events after 2010) so speedy G5 definitely doesn't apply. Der yck C. 13:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AutoAnything

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This has been deleted several times in the past, but the article is considerably expanded, so I am not comfortable with speedy G5. There seems to be extensive advertising, but also a negative analysis of its web site & the position of its stock in sections which does have references, but seem greatly excessive detail. DGG ( talk ) 18:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any specific sections which you see as advertorial? RobBertholf (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the version by User:AplombBomb is quite improved over clearly promotional versions from years ago. If we take a look at similar wikipedia articles in the Category:Automotive_part_retailers_of_the_United_States we will see a number of similar companies which have not been nominated for deletion and have less notability and citations: MagnaFlow_Performance_Exhaust, CSK_Auto, Pep_Boys, JC_Whitney, Western_Auto. VIP_Parts,_Tires_and_Service, Carquest, Belle_Tire, etc. If the other articles warrant their spot surely this one does too. I think the answer should be identifying any specific areas in the article which are problematic and flag them for a resolution rather than arbitrarily removing it all together. RobBertholf (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With respect - and this is not a guideline - but I recommend that you read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The existence of other, related articles isn't a justification for this article to exist. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for this, I will read now. All constructive criticism is appreciated. RobBertholf (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Would there be "inherent notability" for any article in the Category:Automotive_part_retailers_of_the_United_States category?RobBertholf (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would not say so, no. A business should ideally have a Wikipedia article due to coverage in reliable, secondary sources. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 21:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - If we are to judge each article on it's own merit (as it should). This company is clearly notable and I believe AplopBomb did a good job at adding citations and keeping the article neutral. Looking at past versions which clearly should have been deleted, there is a significant change in the current article. If there are any specific items in the article you or the nominator can recommend changing I would be happy to make the changes. I went out of my way to augment this article and would hate to see it all lost. Wish the original author would also chime in. RobBertholf (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional keep. Like the nominator, I'm concerned about the tone; however, I feel that it should not be difficult to fix the tonal issues with the article, though these fixes definitely have to be made for me to be okay with the article remaining on Wikipedia. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I am glad to help with tonal issues if you or the nominator can advise what aspects in particular are of concern, any advice you could give would help me understand how to create better wiki articles. Possibly the original poster could help fix as well. Not sure how I would reach AplopBomb but I will leave a not on their talk page. RobBertholf (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - From a quick read through, the "other services and endeavours" could be cut down to just be a sentence or two as part of the main history, and the website redesign section could go for some trimming. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 00:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete AutoAnything lacks notability for me, When you google them you get their pinterest, their Facebook, linked in, groupon, etc. so I see a ton of stuff about them, but nothing out of the norm of any other business. The purchase of Autoanything buy Autozone is notable but one notable paragraph can't justify an entire article when we have an article that paragraph can go into. Bryce Carmony (talk) 12:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think that sources are pretty good, you have ones talking about its sale, its profits, and a book source talking about the website design. AplombBomb (talk) 20:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The article is consistent with articles in the Category:Automotive_part_retailers_of_the_United_States category, it has undergone intensive rewrite to include more citations than any other article in its category and does not read as promotional. If there are problematic areas of the article trim them down but the article should stay. RobBertholf (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the sources are inappropriate and the burden is not on the reviewers here to sort them. Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion are low and this article does not meet those low standards in any obvious way. Someone can point out the 2-3 solid sources which establish WP:GNG or name another criteria that this passes, or otherwise I am comfortable deleting this without further consideration. This article is in opposition to Wikipedia standards and anyone comfortable spending the time to write and re-write it ought to be comfortable meeting Wikipedia's standards too. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand that some of the sources are niche, but there's definitely coverage of the subject in sources important to the industry, including a book explicitly discussing the quality (or lack thereof) of its website AplombBomb (talk) 03:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ (Struck duplicate !vote Hobit (talk)), This is a well formed article improved by User:AplombBomb after Senior Editor III User:New_Age_Retro_Hippie provided guidance on problematic areas.
- WP:PLENTY Well written article with plenty of relevant citations.
- WP:Clearly notable Authority for automotive accessories as indicated by numerous top positions in Google Searches for notable keywords such as "rims" (#4), "headlights" (#3), "floor mats" (#3), "seat covers" (#2), "tonneau covers" (#1), etc.
- WP:GOOGLEHITS Google returns about 971,000 results for this term. ^[1]
- WP:BIG Ranked #2,864 in the United States on Alexa and #11,519 most popular site in the world. ^[2]
- WP:ALLORNOTHING The article is consistent with articles in the Category:Automotive_part_retailers_of_the_United_States category
- WP:MERCY WP:PLEASEDONT I spent some effort on this one and now feel invested in it. Please have mercy and do not delete :) RobBertholf (talk) 23:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Firstly, these aren't actually guidelines - they are, in fact, links to "arguments to avoid." Being big, having many sources, being in top positions for Google search results, having many Google hits, having similar articles, these aren't reasons to keep an article. Pleading is also definitely not a reason - while Wikipedians don't want to upset people, and people should be respectful in these discussions to those defending an article's existence, it shouldn't be a reason to keep.
  - With that said, I'm not convinced that the article does not satisfy notability criteria. It does have tonal issues and some sourcing issues, but it has enough decent sources that cover it in a nontrivial manner that I can't agree on the sources being problematic. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 04:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - So that sounds like a Keep New Age Retro Hippie? @Rob talk 14:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, as I've said. If you think that you need to re-"vote" Keep or Delete following the relisting, you don't - it's merely there to get more input from more people. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 22:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to AutoZone which now owns AutoAnything. I am not that impressed with the references and I'm inclined to think the company never did meet the requirements of WP:CORP, but a redirect and merge would keep some of the information here. --MelanieN (talk) 23:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree, IMHO AutoAnything met GNG before AutoZone acquisition and serves a different market (Retail vs Online). Recommend keeping as is. @Rob talk 21:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "About 971,000 search results". Google. Retrieved 2015-04-02.
^ "Alexa Ranking". Retrieved 2015-04-02.

Keep a little of it. It's notable enough. Shouldn't be more than a paragraph or two of straight facts, though. - Richfife (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per MelanieN. Between the spammy nature of the article, WP:CORP and the lack of solid sources, I don't think we should have this as a stand-alone article. Hobit (talk) 11:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

[1] "About 971,000 search results". Google. Retrieved 2015-04-02.

[2] "Alexa Ranking". Retrieved 2015-04-02.

[1]

[2]