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. No consensus for deletion has been formed, though I'd strongly advise editors (especially Sionk) to continue their work in improving the article to avoid it being renominated in the future. – Juliancolton | Talk01:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant advertisement even if it's not as severe as others because not only are the casually tossed sources here all trivial and unconvincing, some are obvious press releases while others are comparably covert about it, and the ABC News themselves are in fact local TV news stories, not the national side, and even if it were, a national show such as TODAY, or anything of them would still be only trivial and casual news stories, as is this article here; looking at 10 pages of News all found both blatant and casual advertising, regardless of publication, because that's what the contents exactly were. The 1st AfD had several noticeable troubles about it, not only is that no one ever acknowledged the advertising concerns, but that we're quite obviously aware of such concerns now, and we easily have both policies WP:SPAM and WP:NOT to delete it.
All of these sources only covey what the company would advertise about itself, not what a genuine news article would say, and hence we have churnalism. As it is, the history shows nothing but advertising-only accounts showing how the company was quite likely aware of this article since it bears such similarity to their own advertisements, that they would naturally enjoy this hosted advertising. Another note is the sheer blatancy of this existing since 2009 as an advertisement and it was noticeably removed and then the advertising would be added again, showing the sheer motivations and how we knew in 2014, but no one gave a damn to delete it before it caused worse damages. SwisterTwistertalk18:02, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the general national news sources, published over a period of 9 years, already cited in the article. Though I agree most of the article is made up of cherry-picked information from the news articles. It's not unsalvagable, though I see the article has had some input from the MySupermarket PR dept. No-one would deny (apart from MySupermarket staff) that the article is currently badly written and unbalanced. Sionk (talk) 19:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Subsequent to my comment I have corrected the percentage claims, added a "Reception" section [1] to the article, removed a clear marketing statement [2] and removed the minor, unsourced events from the timeline [3],. In my view the article now conforms to the acceptable standards of similar, reasonably written articles on Wikipedia. The claims below that on-one will improve the article were untrue at the time and continue to be untrue. Sionk (talk) 07:29, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. it probably is notable, but its an advertisement. If anyone thingks it salvagable, I challenge them to salvage it. Icna't--there isn't enough of substance to write about. DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Regardless, none of this is satisfying policy WP:NOT as (1) the ABC News links are in fact local news stations, not at all an independent source as it's only localized information and naturally to advertise locally and it shows "The company offers, the company days today, etc.), and the other links repeat this also L, showing only one person would've authored it, the company itself, even worse so, because it's only advertising localized services. The TC is literally labeled "information by the company" so yet another non-independent source.
All of this violates WP:NOT because it clearly states "Wikipedia is not a sales catalogue or web host of business services" and that's exactly what it is. Especially since TC is notorious for republishing company information, especially the fact it's caring to focus only "company-supplied finance goals and plans", yet another sign it is not independent. Even take one of the links that literally says "Company wants to revolutionize it", no one gives a damn about that than the company itself. The next ones literally say "You need to try MySupermarket and it's services" and "Listen what the company says about itself".
Another is the fact all of this are actually specialized local PR trade publications, including Daily Mail which is notorious for any local for republishing whatever it pleases. Basically the only genuinely major source is the Guardian but even that one, regardless of it being national, is still vulnerable to PR and it has in fact published it before. An example is:
Either way, if you do a regular supermarket shop - particularly if you shop online - mySupermarket.co.uk, which claims to save users up to 20% on their weekly shop, is at least worth a look....By accessing data that is updated daily from each of the supermarkets' own websites, this independent and free service can not only tell you which is the cheapest supplier overall for your entire selection of products, but can also suggest ways of reducing your bill at your chosen supermarket by substituting other goods to get a better deal....Unlike the supermarkets' own websites, mySupermarket.co.uk also lets you adapt shelves to shop by brand or type.....it's cheaper per 100g to buy a pack of 12 Golden Vale Cheestrings Twisters at £2.98 or a pack of 16 at £3.78 (the latter is cheaper by 5p).....potentially save up to £28 more.... Later this same paragraph goes to "The company businessman says...." and finishes with "I'll be using their services again!" (how could that never be PR if it's not only closing with it, but also closing with a company quote!)
None of the keep votes have acknowledged WP:NOT, instead going with general guidelines, and they are simply not the same. When we start ignoring policy, we're damned. Now, given this, not a single one of those sources is genuinely national or international, explicitly without company quotes and company-supplied information, because there are none. When we literally start citing local TV station news articles, it shows no one actually cares but the company's own advertising agents! SwisterTwistertalk02:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closer - As simply a note, no one at all has actually made substantial improvements to this, showing no one has actually cared to make them, and it cannot be confused they will even happen later if not now. Also, the Keep votes are still either saying "It needs improvements only" or stating general notability, instead of actual policy, which explicitly allows removal of this. The only changes being made here are cosmetics and not actually fixing the concerns, therefore we cannot fix a blatant advertisement by simply rewording a few things (essentially confirming no meaninnggul improvements) since the concept is still advertising, regardless. There is no different path to word their "services and clients" section without it dtill beg advertising. When we willingly start to accept advertising, we're damned. SwisterTwistertalk18:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mind you, this is an 'Articles for deletion' discussion, not an 'Articles for clean-up' discussion. There are some fairly simple steps to take to remove PUFF wording and add a bit of balance. I've already done some of that myself. Sionk (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWP:NOTPROMO is a good reason for deleting the article and hey, it is part of a policy (unlike the essays people are citing). The article consists of a massive amount of promo content (sourced to a bunch of redressed PR material) and a link dump which is contrary to WP:ELNO. Considering that nobody in this AFD has bothered to clean it up, I suggest we go with a delete. (As a matter of fact, I have seen a recent influx of editors using these trashy articles as models and then trying to emulate these, leading to a host of bad content.) The other reason for deleting is that the sources are not good enough to satisfy WP:CORPIND. You gotta be kidding me if you believe this satisfies WP:CORPIND and WP:SPIP. The other sources are also not good enough - The Grocer is an employee talking about the company, Goodhousekeeping is an initial review by an university student, The Guardian reliable source, but again, an initial review, Marketingweek again employee talking about the company, Techcrunch is again the CEO talking, Campaignlive is a trivial news about a merger/aquisition, ABC 2 is again an employee talking about the company, ThisIsMoney (part of DailyMail) is a tangential mention in the context of another company. Sorry, but these sources are not good enough for WP:CORPIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No one will attempt to clean the article up until this AfD is concluded. So to delete it because it hasn't been clean up is getting the argument a bit back to front. Sionk (talk) 19:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We simply can't have promotional content on Wikipedia per WP:NOTPROMO, and this one is about a non-notable company. An AFD remains open for like 7 days and is usually relisted once or twice (making it 14-21 days). That provides sufficient time to demonstrate notability and improve the article. Btw, there was a previous AFD (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MySupermarket) and it seems like no one bothered to clean this up that time as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The 'Keep' voters each argue (with evidence) that notability is demonstrated and I, for one, started to improve the article. We'll have to agree to disagree, rather than throwing polarised opinions at one another. Sionk (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lemongirl and DGG. WP:NOTPROMO controls here and this article fails it. I would note to Sionk (talk·contribs) that it is absolutely common practice to cleanup an article mid-AfD in the interest of saving it. I've seen it done many times and done so at least once myself. Even if the article is deleted anyway, the rewrite can be the basis for a future article if more sources become available. Mackensen(talk)02:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is all very Kafka-esque and smacks more of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I find it difficult to understand how different experienced editors can draw such diverse conclusions. The article is easily salvageable, but I've no connection or particular affection for mySupermarket so if it gets removed then so be it. Sionk (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To state the obvious, this AfD has been going for nearly a month now and all any Keep people have suggested is "Let's improve it" yet no one has, even while this AfD is happening and hence is instead quickly becoming Delete. WP:NOT policy is not negotiable with such company advertising, as we know, and the fact apparent improvements aren't helping, emphasizes it. SwisterTwistertalk21:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With all respect that's plainly not true. The 'keepers' have said the subject passes WP:GNG, which is Wikipedia's major tenet. There's no requirement or obligation for people who 'vote' keep to clean up the article immediately (or at all). Otherwise there would be hardly any progress at AfD. Sionk (talk) 22:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The major consideration at AfD for as long as I've been active here, has been WP:GNG. To be honest I'd challenge any of the 'delete'ers to actually point to which parts of this article are irrepairable. It's plainly not irrepairable. In fact the article is quite a standard, acceptable format of description, timeline and criticism. Sionk (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we consider 2 years ago, that itself is not an explanation for not deleting now, especially since we're harder with spam now. That said, this current article has absolutely no criticism at all, only company financials, activities and itshows company plans. That violates WP:NOT's "Wikipedia is not a place for YellowPages-esque company information such as its own company specifics" hence policy. As for the article issues, they've been listed. SwisterTwistertalk08:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We're evidently looking at different articles. It has criticism (add more if you can find it, without being WP:UNDUE of course). I've no idea what financials are. There's only a small paragraph about investments. How a company is financed is pretty standard info. Sionk (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is not showing how the relevant Delete votes have cited policy, what policy is higher than the one serious important one we have WP:NOT which explicitly states we are not a business webhost and can remove it. The sources themselves have been shown to be nothing but republished words and company notices, if that's all we have, why damn ourselves as a PR webhost? Supposed improvements are not relevant if policy states against it. SwisterTwistertalk00:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT doesn't trump GNG, GNG is the most important policy and well respected policy we have and IMHO GNG trumps NOT, You may believe it's a business webhost however I believe it's an artcle that meets CORDEPTH and GNG and IMHO is worth saving, I believe the sources are fine however there's tons more on Google News as well as Google Books, Thanks. –Davey2010Merry Xmas / Happy New Year01:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closer - As shown at WP:NOT and WP:GNG, WP:NOT is still policy whereas GNG is a suggested guideline, as GNG itself states that it is not the foremost. NOT is still the first policy we ever started actually using because it formed what was explicitly unsuitable for WP itself. SwisterTwistertalk01:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
GNG is still the most respected policy here and trumps NOT, Also NOT is irrelevant here because the article isn't a blatant promotion - It's a notable topic and the sources prove that, Also being promotional isn't a valid reason for deletion because promo text can be copy-edited and immensely improved, Sources have been presented which are all notable reliable sources and are in-depth coverage so therefore should be kept. –Davey2010Merry Xmas / Happy New Year01:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It appears this article is though spam, therefore according to Wikipedia policies should not be retained considering theres no good revision without spam.ⓏⓟⓟⓘⓧTalk23:36, 20 December 2016 (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.