Talk:Dollar Shave Club

This page reads like an advertisement

I recommend deletion or major revision. The Dollar Shave Club is very good at social media and Internet advertising, and this article is an example of that skill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcervelli (talk • contribs) 02:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I just added a notice to the page that states "this article reads like an advertisement". Daylen (talk) 02:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Daylen, I've made some previous edits regarding COI. Could you please provide some more detail for the notice you added? You've mentioned here that you added the notice, but didn't provide an explanation.--DirectAttrition (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi DirectAttrition, sorry for the late reply. The reason I added that banner is due to everything in this article being positive (like a press release). It would we nice to incorporate an article like this which shows Dollar Shave Club's high markup. Daylen (talk) 21:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Daylen, the Advert tag is for articles that are directly trying to sell a product to readers. The guidelines state: “Don't add this tag simply because the material in the article shows a company or a product in an overall positive light or because it provides an encyclopedic summary of a product's features.” The explanation you provided doesn't meet the requirements for this tag. Your explanation was a little vague, if you can provide specific examples of the page you feel need to be improved upon, then we can work on that --DirectAttrition (talk) 21:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

No mention that DSC uses blades and handles manufactured by Korean razor maker Dorco. That really should be part of the article. AdmiralSirJohn (talk) 13:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

COI

Hi Rms125a@hotmail.com - What are your concerns regarding COI? You didn't provide any details in your edit summary or on the talk page. I've made some edits to the page previously, so I could probably help you. --DirectAttrition (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration clause

@Смерть шпионам: I removed the section about the arbitration clause for the following reasons:

1. The New York Times discussed consumer arbitration clause in general and did not discuss the Dollar Shave Club arbitration clause. Therefore, it is pure WP:SYNTH to use this source.
2. The only source provided that directly discusses the DSC arbitration clause is the DSC terms page itself, a WP:PRIMARY source. If the arbitration clause really deserves any WP:WEIGHT in the article about all of DSC's operations, there should be a reliable secondary source directly discussing the arbitration clause.
3. Also, the text might need a WP:NPOV rewrite. Again, researching how the DSC arbitration clause is described by secondary sources would help in such a rewrite.

Finally, I will assure you and other editors that I have no WP:COI on this article. I would prefer that accusations such as calling me a "possible subject profit participant" not be made in the future.

Thanks, RJaguar3 | u | t 21:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

RJaguar3, Please reread the NYT article, you will see it is on point. Yuri — Preceding unsigned comment added by Смерть шпионам (talk • contribs) 07:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@Смерть шпионам: I did read the NYT article. It discusses arbitration clauses in general, not specifically the DSC arbitration clause. Your juxtaposition of the quote from the NYT article with the primary source DSC terms is classice WP:SYNTH. RJaguar3 | u | t 11:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration clause RFC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Unanimous no. --GRuban (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

---

Does the text added here about Dollar Shave Club's arbitration clause satisfy WP:BALASPS, WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH, and WP:NOT?

Previous discussion can be found on this talk page (#Arbitration clause). Thanks for your feedback, RJaguar3 | u | t 20:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• It's rare that something is asked on RfC that is as clear as this. The use of these clauses is is a general issue, and it would be absurd to list it for every company that uses one. Unless there is a major issue involving a specific company, it does not belong in that company's articles. I see no evidence of that here. It would be as absurd to list it for all specific companies as any other controversial problem in general business law. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
• RJaguar3, the text added in the Sales Agreement section gives undue weight to a topic that is not notable (WP: NPOV, WP:BALASPS). Use of the New York Times article cited - combined different parts of one source to imply a conclusion not stated by the source. (WP:SYNTH) Lastly, a company's sales agreement is not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia (WP:NOT). DirectAttrition (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
• Disagree with the intended insertion of the so-called "Arbitration Clause" in the article. This type of clause, whereby the company “may elect to resolve any claim by individual arbitration,” has become, for better of worse, a standard in contracts in similar fields of commerce as the cited, New York Times article makes clear. (To wit: "...Over the last few years, it has become increasingly difficult to apply for a credit card, use a cellphone, get cable or Internet service, or shop online without agreeing to private arbitration. The same applies to getting a job, renting a car or placing a relative in a nursing home.") It seems that, on account of Wikipedia's notability criterion, the Arbitration Clause might merit an article of its own. However, it is clearly unacceptable to single out in Wikipedia one particular company among many that engage in what has become an industry standard without that company having become exceptionally noticed for it. That would clearly be in violation of several rules, e.g. no undue weighting. -The Gnome (talk) 09:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
• Disagree - Adding the contested section would give WP:UNDUE weight to the issue. The information is reliably sourced to the NYT but it is not encyclopedic. If we are to add it here, that would allow other company pages to add a so-called "Sales agreement" section, which we don't want. Meatsgains (talk) 03:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
• No - This appears to be written from the POV of someone who objects to the terms of the contract mentioned. If there was a notable court case where judgement was found against the use of these terms by this company then it might be appropriate to include this content. As it is, it's WP:UNDUE, WP:POV and fails WP:NOT and WP:BALASPS. Jojalozzo (talk) 01:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
• No. I agree with the others. This looks like poorly sourced POV-pushing. Unless there is coverage of this company's arbitration clause in particular, the criticism doesn't belong here. And even if there were coverage, it would need to written more neutrally than this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
• No. This requires a secondary source establishing the notability of Dollar Shave's specific arbitration agreement, not just one talking about such agreements in general. Gamaliel (talk) 05:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• Not currently but can be perhaps salvaged. At present it seems UNDUE, but it's also not wrong to mention the info, even if it is increasingly common. It's ok for WP articles to contain true, verifiable info whose specific notability is not easily established through RS. Consider the sentence "Dollar Shave Club is backed by a variety of venture capitalists" - do we have an RS establishing the notability of this specific info? No. Should we delete that sentence until such RS is produced? No. Is such a thing common? Yes. Does it improve the article by adding verifiable and relevant info? Yes. So:

Perhaps just a link to the sales agreement and a link arbitration clause. Such info will not be UNDUE if it is brief, factual, relevant, and does not have its own section (I think a specific subject header was the most UNDUE thing about this diff). Dollar Shave club's clause could also perhaps be used as an example at the arbitration clause article. Also perhaps a category could be made, something about business with sales agreements that waive class action rights via binding arbitration clauses. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• Don't include Per WP:UNDUE Darx9url (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dollar shave club

Dollar shave club Itismymoney2 (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I cant log on and want to change my address

I tryed to log on but it says there no user name. And i would like to change my address cuz i have not received my razors when i joined last month. And they took the monie out of my account this month. Jliming1 (talk) 22:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dollar Shave Club. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.palmbeachdailynews.com/news/news/local/small-beauty-renegades-make-headway-amid-giants/nftQF
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140502201034/http://industry.shortyawards.com/category/6th_annual/retail_e_commerce/s6/dollarshaveclubcom-one-wipe-charlies-launch to http://industry.shortyawards.com/category/6th_annual/retail_e_commerce/s6/dollarshaveclubcom-one-wipe-charlies-launch
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140502143442/http://ccalliance.org/march/dollar-shave-club.html to http://ccalliance.org/march/dollar-shave-club.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)