Due to the lack of response, I have raised this as a deletion review. Please see the discussion here: ==Deletion review for Watch Shop== An editor has asked for a deletion review of Watch Shop. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Natashajerrellcraig ( talk) 11:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Watch Shop ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Hello, I'd like to raise a request for editors to reconsider the speedy deletion of the Watch Shop page. I have reached out to User:SouthernNights and left a message on their talk page but did not receive a response. There was no discussion about deleting the page, and no response in the talk page when I contested the speedy deletion. While the grounds for deletion of the page in 2013 as outlined in Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Watch Shop may have been fair, the status of the subject has since grown and changed. Below, I've outlined a response to the reasons given for the recent deletion ( WP:A7 and WP:G4).

Watch Shop is a subsidiary of the UK’s leading jewellery retailer, Aurum Holdings. ^{[1] [2]} There are live Wikipedia pages about several of Aurum Holdings’ other businesses, including Goldsmiths, Mappin & Webb and Watches of Switzerland. Note: Some of these pages are not written neutrally or as well sourced as the page in question.

The company meets the criteria outlined in WP:WEBCRIT:

“The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.” Several newspaper articles document the business’ history, growth, and relevance, including: ^{[3] [1] [4]}

Details about the company are cited with independent, third-party reliable sources.

"The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization." See Sunday Times Fast Track 100. ^{[5] [6]}

I can't see what the old page looked like, but while it may not have been valid in 2013, the company is now a leading online retailer in the UK watch market ^{[7] [8] [9]} and a ‘market leader’ ^{[10] [11]} and is therefore relevant in a similar way to Farfetch, Trainline and Moonpig. Its subsequent growth, activity, and consumer interest in it mean it meets notability guidelines, which have been appropriately cited in line with WP:V. Natashajerrellcraig ( talk) 11:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• restore with no objection to someone listing at AfD. The sources don't seem great, but are, IMO, enough to get past a speedy deletion at this point (both A7 and G4). Hobit ( talk) 16:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Did you see any independent sources that contain more than a passing mention, Hobit? I may be missing something.— S Marshall T/ C 19:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• [1] isn't hugely in-depth, but it's more than in passing. [2] is fairly in-depth, but also looks quite local. Between those and the other sources, I feel that there is both an assertion of notability that can be had and sources that happened after the AfD in 2013. I won't claim it's clearly passing WP:N, but I do think that puts it over the bar of A7 and G4. Hobit ( talk) 22:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment can an admin tell us who the article creator was/if it is the same as Natashajerrellcraig ? I find it interesting that there is no CSD warning on their talk page and this is there second edit. If it was created by them, a trout to the nominator for not notifying, and I'd be open to userfy on that combined with the above. I also suspect this might be an undeclared paid situation. While I'd normally be open to userfication of G4s from AfDs multiple years ago, these concerns combined with S Marshall's points about the mere passing mentions in the sourcing have me suspecting that this might be a situation where it would be a possible G5 deletion if restored . TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • I've tempundeleted the article (which also makes the full history available). -- RoySmith (talk) 23:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC) reply
    • That's useful, thanks. I would like comments from the nom here. The fact that you have only used this account to edit on this topic leads me to suspect there may be WP:COI issues here. Could you explain what caused you to create this article (from scratch in one edit it appears)? Do you have any other accounts? Hobit ( talk) 01:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• • • • Hello and thanks for reviewing my request. I am new to Wikipedia and am still learning the processes, so apologies if I’ve missed something out by not notifying editors that I had created the page. In response to your questions, I follow blogs like WatchPro ^[1] and Jewellery Focus ^[2] and noticed there wasn’t a Watch Shop page on Wikipedia, while there were pages for related companies like Goldsmiths and Watches of Switzerland. I thought it seemed relevant, in line with existing pages about other UK online retailers I mentioned before ( Farfetch, Trainline, and Moonpig). The reason the article was uploaded in one edit was because I had been working on it offline and amending it in the Sandbox until it was complete.

• • • • • I don't know that you quite answered all my questions, sorry if they were unclear. #1: Do you have any other accounts here? #2: Have you been paid or otherwise compensated in any way for writing this article? Thanks, Hobit ( talk) 16:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC) reply
          • Apologies if my response was unclear. To answer your questions, no, I am just a new

user who has gradually been working on the page offline/in the sandbox.

• Overturn WP:G4 was an invalid nomination (simply speculative?) and G4 should not have been cited in the deletion rationale. Before, after, diff, or is my diff awry? However, the deletion also cited WP:A7 and this has much more going for it. Even using the wikithink that importance is a lower bar than notability, this article has a better chance surviving challenge at AFD for notability than at CSD for A7. Articles about small businesses are all the better if they do not claim importance but merely make a sober assessment of whatever is the state of affairs. This article seems to manage (no one has yet said "spam") and the reading is therefore uninteresting. It is this, rather than any exuberance, that is raising questions about whether it has been written with ulterior motives. So, I'll conclude that the speedy was not "when no controversy exists". Restore, userspace, draft? I don't know. Maybe restore. Thincat ( talk) 18:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• Overturn doesn't meet G4 given the difference from the deleted version, although the tagger was not an admin and presumably wouldn't have known that. There were also several claims of significance which I think should have prevented A7 deletion, including "UK’s largest luxury jeweller", several awards and national press coverage. The fact the AfD was four years ago doesn't exactly help. I'm not sure there's enough here to survive another AfD but I think there is enough to justify sending it back there. Hut 8.5 20:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• Overturn Clearly not G4, though no fault of the tagger on that count. Agree with Hut 8.5 that this should be sent back to AfD. I'd likely !vote delete on both notability and spam grounds, but I don't see it meeting any of the CSD criteria at this time. TonyBallioni ( talk) 22:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. Many new references since the version deleted by a brief AfD in 2013. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• Overturn Not a valid G4 or A7, improper deletion. The issue of whether this is paid/COI editing is not properly before us: aside from questioning the nominator, no one has actually accused this of being a paid editing or banned sock job. Jclemens ( talk) 23:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC) reply