Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homegain.com

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 Delete. ChetblongT C 04:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Homegain.com

Homegain.com (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This article was created a few days ago and has been CSD tagged and prodded. Virtually every contributor to it is a SPA and they seem to do nothing but edit war over its contents. So I'm taking it to AfD to decide if it meets the WP:CORP guidelines. Polly (Parrot) 01:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep and cleanup. 6th most popular real estate web site according to CNN. Pburka (talk) 01:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The concept that a company was once sued in its history is not notable. The fact that the lawsuit was settled and is three years old makes it less notable. What is notable is that the contributor of the article has been posting this information for three years on various forums. This is the contributors latest forum to publish non relevant information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthandjusticeforall (talk • contribs) 01:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    User blocked indef. Nakon 01:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete with reservations. Being #6 on a list may or may not be enough to establish encyclopedic notability, but I am uneasy about the fact that lots of completely unsourced claims are being edit-warred over. I am wondering if NPOV is possible for an article that seems to have no neutral editors, and I am wondering if the subject can truly be notable if no uninvolved editors can be found. In other words, is this subject important to anyone who is not involved (directly or otherwise) in the edit war? References, please, and if you can't provide them, then the article should go. Dethme0w (talk) 01:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: #6 on a list would be ok, but this is a contrived search. The lawsuit makes this suitable for In the News and WP:NEWS, but not the encyclopedia. Meanwhile, the top half is written like an ad. I.e. the article fails the deletion guideline for both of its POV's. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Leaving aside the do no harm principle, this is a non-notable, web-based, service business of the sort that I find particularly problematic. And, they claim to provide online marketing solutions. Notable businesses offer products and/or services; only non-notable businesses provide "solutions". As a wise person once said, "Barf out! Gag me with a spoon!" - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - note that the linked citation appears to go to a local government website that apparently puts court dockets or documents online. I didn't dig too deeply there, but this is not independent coverage; as the traditional disclaimer goes, legal pleadings provide only one party's version of the facts, no matter how much feigned dudgeon and moral hyperventilation they contain. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete; Largely non-notable company that has been sued by some of its employees. It appears that the entire article is being used as a WP:COATRACK by which to defame the company about this lawsuit. Given the fact. Given the relatively little amount of neutral source material about the company EXCEPT for the lawsuit, it is impossible to build an article compliant with WP:NPOV, since the article gives undue weight to the lawsuit, which of course, it the ONLY reason this company is known. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

What is notable is that company itself did not post this entree-the stuff about what the company does was concoted by author of the article just so he could write about the three year old law suit. Law suits are a dime a dozen especially ones that are three years old and have been settled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.29.4 (talk) 03:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


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.