Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Motorcycle Superstore

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk aboutabout my edits? 17:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Motorcycle Superstore

[edit]
Motorcycle Superstore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page does not have notable press coverage and seems to be a promotion of the corporation, written by someone with a potential conflict of interest. User:Dennis Bratland pretty much sums up the rest of the argument on notability here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Motorcycle superstore is a run of the mill internet retailer. There is no significant coverage in independent sources as required by Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), which says "Self-promotion and product placement are not routes to qualifying for an encyclopaedia article." Instead there are numerous citations of press releases and other non-independent sources, and many citations which meet non-qualifying criteria, such as:
    • sources that simply report meeting times, shopping hours or event schedules,
    • inclusion in lists of similar organizations. Inclusion in "best of", "top 100", and similar lists generally does not count towards notability, unless the list itself is so notable that each entry can be presumed notable. Examples of the latter include the Fortune 500 or a Michelin Guide to restaurants.
    • routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel,
    • brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business,
    • simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued,
    • routine notices of facility openings or closings (e.g., closure for a holiday or the end of the regular season),
    • quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, or
    • passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization.

    Note that sports sponsorships are not inherently notable. There must be some third party reporting which asserts that the subject, Motorcycle Superstore, is itself notable as a result of the sponsorship. Obligatory mention of the company name because the company bought naming rights does not equal significant coverage. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia reply

-----

Hi there. I submitted this article. From this discussion, I question whether Dennis Bratland critically reviewed the key sources or attempted to verify them. Bratland's statement that all of the sources are press releases is false. Did you read references 4, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, or 14?

Internet Retailer, which ranks the top 500 retail websites is not an independent source? Motorcycle Superstore was ranked at #197 on that list. That is not notable? Internet Retailer's Top 500 list is not just a “list of other companies,” it is a ranking of the top retailers in the US and Canada based on online sales. Other familiar companies thank rank below Motorcycle Superstore on Internet Retailer’s list have Wikipedia entries and they are probably primarily notable because of their great success as prominent Internet retailers. I’m talking about names like CD Universe, American Musical Supply, Better World Books, Golfsmith, CustomInk, Geeks.com. I will also note that there may be a bias on Wikipedia in favor of brick-and-mortar retailers over Internet retailers, potentially citing in-store retailers that may have lower prominence in terms of sales and customer reach, but higher prominence in terms of physical visibility.

Also, among the references I included: Compete.com. Why is this prominent site not independent? BizRate? Better Business Bureau? Racer X? Radical Powersports? Moto Sports Newswire? Mobile Commerce Daily? The Fast and Dirty? How do you figure that any of these are not independent sources? Or that these are press releases? They are not press releases.

..personal attack removed by admin..

Some of the references I included do refer to Motorcycle Superstore pages, but those are strictly for historical and general info, as I was told this would be acceptable by Chzz on the Wikipedia forums. And a reference to the company’s Facebook page is the only place to verify the traffic of the Facebook page. If you think that fact is not relevant or notable, fine – that is another argument. But that is the best source for that information. And no, that isn’t a reference that proves notability or which objectively demonstrates cultural significance – but the articles from Internet retail experts and the articles from the press within the motorcycle industry cover that. It seems essential to check the independence of these sources before making incorrect claims that they are press releases, or that the company is not notable.

If rational editors feel the ratings or sponsorships are not worthy of inclusion in this article, you may have an argument - but let's hear that argument rather than this dismissive and false blanket statement about the whole article.

I read Wikipedia's terms carefully, at great length, before posting this article, and I engaged in numerous discussions on Wikipedia’s IRC to clarify the guidelines. I asked several Wikipedia editors for feedback, including Chzz, who ultimately posted the article. I recall that the terms warn against conflict of interest editing, but indicate that if a conflict does exist, to be forthright about it. I was. Yet, because of this, this article was slammed by Bratland. So, had I posted this article in disguise as a fully independent editor, as most (all?) companies surely do, it would not be seen as a conflict, right?

Wikipedia terms specify the importance of not submitting a biased article or one about a non-notable subject. I believe the article to be a factual article about a notable company. If you don't, then explain how references 4, 6, 7, 9, 12, and 14 are not notable or what makes you claim them to be press releases.

Mudlover (talk) 00:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mudlover, AFD is not the place to attack the credibility of other editors. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The citation for Facebook likes raises an interesting question. I would say the the best -- and for Wikipedia, the only -- place to cite the number of FB likes would be newspapers like the New York Times, or magazines like Newsweek, or in books published by reputable publishers. None of these major publications have ever written about how many 'likes' Motorcycle Superstore has? That right there is a clue that it's insignificant. If this were a notable company, you wouldn't have to scrape and scrounge for good sources.

    I won't get too deep in to the other arguments, except to say that those that don't just copy-paste press releases are "advertiser friendly" pseudo-journalists who make the effort to paraphrase press releases before giving companies a foot rub. Have any of these sources ever once said anything negative about a company? We all know there are hundreds of awful internet retailers, but you won't read about it at internetretailer.com. They're job is to promote and sell, and that's why they fail to support WP:ORG. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding: "...you wouldn't have to scrape and scrounge for good sources."  "scrape and scrounge" is a non-guideline characterization.  No evidence that this is true, either.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Scrape and scrounge" means the best sources you can find are trade publications of dubious journalistic credibility. Conversely, if your best two or three sources are say, the Wall Street Journal and Business Week, there's no argument, even if you also cite several weaker sources. Here we have nothing but the weak and dubious sources, without a strong foundation of notability. The guideline here is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria: the sources must be independent. My central point (which a reasonable person could disagree with, hence this discussion) is that Dealer News, internetretailer.com, and so forth, are not real journalists and they're not really independent. My evidence is, if you examine their content, that they only publish softball, feel-good stories that are lightly paraphrased copies of the subjects' own press releases. They only give foot rubs to companies in the industry they cover. They are never critical of their subjects. Since they only promote and praise, they are in effect, an extension of the companies' marketing departments. I assert that fails the independence guidelines.

Perhaps, if sufficient consensus exists, drawing a line between real independent journals and trade cheerleader publications could help clarify Wikipedia's notability requirements. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaving aside distractions, I think the crux of the question is whether one considers publications like Dealer News or internetretailer.com to be acceptable for purposes of notability. I would happily cite Dealer News for a non-controversial fact like number of employees or year established, but industry cheerleader journals are indiscriminate, and non-critical. Because they will sing the praises of anybody in their industry, their coverage is not sufficient for notability. If you do accept these sources for notability purposes (I don't), then keep is reasonable. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep it has been rescued with a ton of references meeting GNG.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Here is my response to Dennis Bratland's statement:

"My central point (which a reasonable person could disagree with, hence this discussion) is that Dealer News, internetretailer.com, and so forth, are not real journalists and they're not really independent. My evidence is, if you examine their content, that they only publish softball, feel-good stories that are lightly paraphrased copies of the subjects' own press releases. They only give foot rubs to companies in the industry they cover. They are never critical of their subjects. Since they only promote and praise, they are in effect, an extension of the companies' marketing departments. I assert that fails the independence guidelines."

DealerNews.com was used only to cite this statement: "Motorcycle Superstore is a privately held organization based in Medford, Oregon. Club motorcycle racer, Don Becklin, started selling motorcycle gear from the attic of his grandfather’s house in Grants Pass, Oregon in 1998."

Firstly, I'd argue that this is not exactly a controversial fact. Secondly, I browsed DealerNews for a few minutes and found several articles that do not seem 'softball, feel-good stories that lightly paraphrase company press releases' such as: Opponents question Sturgis trademark group's charitable donation, Harley-Davidson notifying Wisconsin workers of planned layoffs, Judge says 'Daytona Beach Bike Week' is generic, invalidates trademarks, Dealer Lab: Destination Powersports hits speed bump, H-D Union Strikes, and H-D Q2 Net Income Plummets 91%. I found most of these immediately right off the site's current main page.
As for Internet Retailer, it is a source for Web-based retailer information and education. I used this source to cite two things:
1. That Facebook sweepstakes drove traffic to the Motorcycle Superstore Facebook page and website, and
2. That Motorcycle Superstore was ranked as #197 among Internet retailers in overall online sales for 2010.

The Facebook sweepstakes reference reported how an innovative marketing use of Facebook drove site traffic, and it demonstrates that the high Facebook "Likes" for the company were boosted by the sweepstakes. Whether or not the article is trade cheerleading is debatable. But I'd argue that Internet Retailer's Top 500 ranking of Web retailers' top online sales is solidly independent. Unless there is evidence that Internet Retailer favorably ranked Motorcycle Superstore higher than the company deserved, Bratland's claim of favorable, biased cheerleading on this important detail appears unfounded. Furthermore, I notice that American Musical Supply met Wikipedia's notability standard without obstruction based solely on its ranking at 344 in 2006 in Internet Retailer's Top 500 rankings. Motorcycle Superstore was at 197 in that list in 2010. Mudlover (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep They made $71 million one year. Notable business. They get coverage for their activities and that of their hosted game, the AMA Pro Motorcycle-Superstore.com SuperSport. [1] Dream Focus 01:27, 30 December 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Motorcycle_Superstore&oldid=1073125492"