Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Etail Conferences

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. Disregarding the WP:SPA Ckarayannides. Sandstein 18:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Etail Conferences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

No depth-of-coverage about this conference, just mentioned in the sources. Both Forbes references are written by "contributors" which usually suggests they are more akin to a press release than an article by a feature writer. Prod was disputed by COI editor with an interest in creating an article about an affiliated company. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! If Forbes sources aren't allowed, can replace with other non-Forbes sources covering eTail, will look now. All of the sources are actually covering the news that happened at eTail or takeaways from eTail, so they are all quite in-depth coverage. This also includes Cheddar's interviews from eTail. Some examples of sources: https://www.mytotalretail.com/video/single/4-key-takeaways-from-etail-west/ (4 Key Takeaways at eTail West) or https://www.claruscommerce.com/blog/etail-west-2019/ (eTail West 2019: A Very Human Experience).

The 7+ sources are used for references for the description: "eTail conferences feature lectures, panel discussions, workshops, meetings, interactive roundtable discussions, case study presentations, and Q&A sessions. eTail conferences are attended by retailers and lifestyle brands to discuss topics such as retail strategy, digital transformation, and customer experience." ckarayanndies ^Talk 15:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I removed the Forbes sources (even though they are excellent sources, Barbara Thau is awesome: https://www.forbes.com/sites/barbarathau/#6660cf17796d) (ended up putting Barabara Thau back in. She's been writing a Forbes column called "Minding The Stores" for 6 years and is probably the most credible retail journalist writing for Forbes Ckarayannides (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)) and added more from Chain Store Age, Multichannel Merchant, Dm News, Coindesk etc. All covering takeaways or news from eTail.[reply]

Thanks again for your help in improving the page. Let me know if you have any other suggestions! ckarayanndies ^Talk 16:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC) — Ckarayannides (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—I don't think the sources as provided, save perhaps TheStreet.com one, count as significant independent sources, and I have questions on how reliable they actually are—I'm not plugged into the retail world but a bunch of trade publications don't seem like they demonstrate notability via the GNG. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep—Looks like most major retail or e-commerce publications covers these events extensively. I think the sourcing falls in line or exceeds that of the other conferences on Wikipedia. I do think that the page needs to be improved, which should probably be the first step attempted before deletion. Disclaimer: I am the one finding and adding the sources, but think the point is still valid.

  This user is new to Wikipedia. Please assume good faith, remain civil, and be calm, patient, helpful, and polite while they become accustomed to Wikipedia and its intricacies.

  Ckarayannides (talk) 13:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Ckarayannides has won me over. Willing to wait and see. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments: When I consider reliably independent in-depth coverage (that seems to be lacking) I generally look for sourcing (from a notability aspect) that is not connected to the subject such as trade magazines or other industry specific magazines. The "depth" (please read) of coverage is crucial. These trade shows might be a good thing but I picture someone advising Walmart to regularly move all the isles around so people will have to look for what they need and thus impulse buy. Everyone I have ever talked to hates the practice (I don't shop there) but Walmart keeps growing. I picture a trade organization advising car dealers to use "pre-owned" instead of "used" as that is a better word (people absolutely will buy a pre-owned vehicle over a used one) and making the price $24,999 instead of $25,000. The ONE DOLLAR savings will make the price look cheaper and create more sales. I am not going to bust any bubbles in case I were to be the last to !vote. Anyway, I didn't dissect the sources so will refrain from !voting. Good luck, Otr500 (talk) 03:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unambiguous WP:PROMO. Remember that the WP:NOT policy specifically saysWikipedia articles about a company or organization are not an extension of their website or other social media marketing efforts.. The brand new editor's first edits were to the fairly obscure MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist page in an effort to get a known brand spammer removed from the blacklist [1]. This has happened before, when another SPA tried to get the spammer added to the whitelist while editing this specific article [2]. That's the context here: blocked spammers, and SPAs pushing this conference. The content of the page shows that the company does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH, as the cited sources are mostly not about the subject, or are from trade journals deriving their content from company-provided material. For example, the Forbes Thau source is about Wal-Mart, and only contains a quote from an eTail employee. Put another way, the coverage is either not significant or not independent. So, delete according to policy, or delete according to guidelines. Either way the result is the same. Bakazaka (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Comments:Hi Bakazaka! That's a very fair argument with many good points. I do believe that very very few events/conferences on Wikipedia meet the level of WP:CORPDEPTH requirements you state. I disagree that the coverage isn't in depth, when the majority of sources are covering takeaways from the event. Nevertheless! I do hope that this level of requirement is consistent in practice (across other events/conferences). I this is really truly the case, I support the delete cause!

  On the subject of Worldwide Business Research and my request to have it removed from the blacklist last week: I don't know anything about what happened in 2007 when the organizer of this event was blacklisted (as I was 15 years old at the time and more worried about homework). It was probably done by some idiot 12 years ago. I do believe though, that any legitimate company should be given a whitelist opportunity 12 years after the fact, even if a page is not created with the company as the subject.{{pb{{TLDR: If these are the rules, I support you and agree with you :)

  (and thanks again for weighing in)

  This user is new to Wikipedia. Please assume good faith, remain civil, and be calm, patient, helpful, and polite while they become accustomed to Wikipedia and its intricacies.

  Ckarayannides (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Undisclosed paid editing, for example editing on behalf of your employer without disclosing that connection, is a violation of the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use and grounds for blocking. Editing with an undisclosed COI also violates WP:COI. Given that information, you should disclose any connection you have with eTail on your user page, the article talk page, and this discussion immediately. Bakazaka (talk) 19:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Comments: Sorry still getting the swing of the Wikipedia ins-and-outs. Thanks for the tip Bakazaka. Wasn't hired to edit Wikipedia, just thought it would be fun to update the info on their page (Also in my digging found out about the blacklist!). I Am affiliated with the subject, but not sure how much I want to post my personal WP:PRIVACY stuff. Do most editors state where they work or who they are? Happy to mark it with COI Editor though. I promise to do it Monday morning.

  The contents or deletion of this page has no effect on me, I just know about the subject and wanted to update the info. But like I said, I support you and your argument and I'm fine and support deleting the page if it doesn't meet Wikipedia requirements. Ckarayannides (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Your job title and name are not necessary (no one cares, actually), but disclosing that you have a financial relationship and therefore a conflict of interest regarding the company is a requirement if you're editing articles related to the company. Bakazaka (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Comments: Gotcha, also thanks for adding it for me! Ckarayannides (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments: Hey all, thanks again for all your comments and debate. Not sure when this eventually gets decided on, but wanted to put out a final point, albeit a weak one (a "but look at them" argument, I know) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conferences --> The majority (90%? 95%?) of the pages on this category list (and subcategories) share a few things in common. They are heavily edited by a COI editor to add new facts, and they are sourced by industry-specific publications. The most notable will have some level of coverage from publications Bloomberg or the Street (like etail conferences), but it's rare. Are all these pages on the chopping block? Would hope that if the sourcing is extensive and the page is neutral, each of these pages has value.
  Whatever the decision, you've all been great! I've enjoyed getting a feel for the debate process, but also for editing and sourcing. Ckarayannides (talk) 21:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feel free to nominate any/all of them for deletion via WP:PROD or WP:AFD. I would imagine that many of them should be deleted. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Will do! And again, no hard feelings over eTail/WBR Ckarayannides (talk) 14:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • But could never be me in good faith. Just the fact that I have a COI with a conference page that was proposed to be deleted, I then turn around and propose the deletion of other conference pages? Don't think that's what Wikipedia was built to do. In my opinion, all should stay if they have proper sourcing and are written with a neutral voice and sourced facts Ckarayannides (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - promotional article, reads like a promotional brochure WP:NOTPROMOTION - does not meet WP:ORGSIG or WP:ORGCRITE - most of the references seem to be about topics covered in the conferences, not reliable sources about the company itself - Epinoia (talk) 01:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:Hi Epinoia! Sincerely thanks for your input.
    • My comments for your points would be: On the subject of WP:NOTPROMOTION, this is what is stated: "Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small garage bands or local companies are typically unacceptable. Wikipedia articles about a company or organization are not an extension of their website or other social media marketing efforts. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article. Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs."
      • Does this page not meet the above criteria? If it does not, can you specify what in this page is subjective, biased, or full of puffery? What is the difference between this page and any other page in terms of WP:NOTPROMOTION.
        • On the subject of WP:ORGSIG, the notability of any conference is based on the coverage and notability of what happens at that conference. Think about the coverage of any event that has ever happened. The coverage is based on what happens at the event, not the event itself. But, if you are only looking for examples of sourcing that covers the event and not as much the topics/announcements/happenings at the event, would suggest these three sources: https://www.mytotalretail.com/article/what-you-can-expect-at-the-2017-etail-west-conference/ https://www.campaignasia.com/article/omnichannel-is-old-hat-and-more-takeaways-from-etail-asia-2018/443334 https://www.retailtechnologyinsider.com/etail-west-2018-digital-shopper-ai-human-element/#.XNRXg45Kjcu
          • Thank you again for contributing, I appreciate your viewpoint and welcome the discussion! Ckarayannides (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTPROMOTION. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2019 (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.