Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HometownQuotes

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. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HometownQuotes

HometownQuotes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable insurance quotes website. Article written by an SPA. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

"Non-notable" is a subjective phrase. The fact that RHaworth perceives HometownQuotes as a non-notable insurance quotes site shows his lack of investigation into the matter. The company has been recognized by several business publications for its growth and entrepreneurial spirit - including the Nashville Business Journal, The Tennessean, BusinessTN magazine and Inc. magazine. Non-notable companies do not earn the attention of such publications. --Kristahtq (talk) 15:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note above is article creator and possible COI (name ends in htq - hometownquotes). Travellingcari (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

*Delete - one source is a blog, the first is a trivial mention. Third *might* pass WP:ORG but otherwise I see a lot of PR fluff and not much coverage. I'd change my vote if someone can find more as I don't think the local awards make it either. Travellingcari (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• I understand your point. However, the blog author who is referred to above is a credible source as her financial column is syndicated and appears in Seattle Times and the Miami Herald. The changes have been made to reflect that in the entry. Regarding more coverage, outside of local - see the Inc. magazine entry. Again, I appreciate all suggestions to improve. Thanks. --Kristahtq (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Direct link, OK he was profiled but does this make it in any way notable? He didn't appear to win the award, and if he had that might make him notable but I still disagree that the company is any more notable than any other local insurance agency. Let's see what others have to say. Travellingcari (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• No, Elon Musk of SpaceX won the award. HometownQuotes' CEO was in the top 10 entrepreneurs behind Elon for Entrepreneur of the Year. Ingram (HTQ CEO) was in the top 10 entrepreneurs out of hundreds across the country who were nominated for the award. --Kristahtq (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Thanks again for your response Carianne. I understand both the WP:COI and WP:ORG and consider myself the liaison between the two parties (HTQ and wiki). If I were simply here to advance one point of view, I wouldn't be doing my best to understand, accommodate and enhance the other. So again, I'm very grateful you're taking the time to help me. HometownQuotes is not an insurance company or agency - no one there writes insurance. The company connects consumers with insurance agents. It helps insurance agents find consumers they otherwise might not have found...and helps individuals get multiple insurance quotes to help them comparison shop for insurance. HometownQuotes works with consumers and agents across the country, so it is beginning to earn national recognition - like the Inc.com mention --Kristahtq (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• • I apologize. I'll keep this conversation here. As I keep mentioning, I'm new to the Wikipedia environment, so I'm still learning about message notifications and such. Sorry. I will comment here. Thanks. --Kristahtq (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No evidence provided of WP:CORP or WP:WEB notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, the entry does meet the WP:WEB notability criterion...those guidelines state - "web-specific content is deemed notable based on meeting any one of the following criteria..."

• The content meets all three of the criteria. The company itself has been the subject of several published works whose source is independent of the site itself. HometownQuotes has been covered by the Nashville Business Journal - a subsidiary of American City Business Journals. The company has also been recognized by The Tennessean - a Gannett newspaper. Most recently the company was recognized by readers of Inc.com - through which the HometownQuotes CEO was voted a reader favorite. Hundreds of entrepreneurs across the country were nominated for the award. He was one of ten to be recognized for it. HometownQuotes' VP of Technology has also been referenced by one of ComputerWorld's senior writers in an article about Adobe ColfFusion.

• The company has won a well-known (in the business world) and independent award from a publication - the Nashville Business Journal's Best in Business Awards. Each year the Bizjournals across the country award the fastest-growing, brightest companies in their regions.

• The content of these publications were distributed in print form via newspapers and magazines as well as online - independent of the creators or anyone affiliated with the company itself.

Thanks. --Kristahtq (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. The quality of the sources given is not really enough to establish notability: local and industry awards are very much like directory listings; few are well known enough outside their niche industries to really meet the business notability guidelines. The bulk of the article text is strictly about the business, and rather proposes the benefits its service offers to insurance shoppers and insurance agents: these section is strongly non-neutral, in a manner that suggests advertising and a conflict of interest by the article's initial author. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• As I've stated previously, I am a new user. The first few folks who flagged this entry as an advertisement were very helpful with their feedback. They provided suggestions to improve the entry and I've made those changes. To be a new user who is sincerely trying to contribute to this environment, I haven't received much positive reinforcement, nor have I received much constructive feedback - with the exception of the first few folks. (Thanks again!) It seems, however, that many are quick to judge an entry before actually digging deeper and investigating the subject of the entry.

I find it interesting that Inc., the magazine that recognizes the Inc. 500, is not a quality source. I think many business owners and company executives would disagree. Also, if fellow debaters claim Inc. is not a credible source, why do they have a Wiki page?

Also note that the articles listed in the entry are not strictly about awards, nor are they all local pubs. One is a business story about Internet businesses and another is a story about technology issues in Computerworld magazine.

Again, I appreciate any help for how I can continue to improve. Thank you. --Kristahtq (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Response I haven't had as much time as I would have liked to help here. I'm not sure if you're speaking of me when you speak about Inc. My issue was not the source but rather that he didn't win the award that year. And the award, if anything, would show the CEO's notability -- not the company. I realise you're trying very hard and that should be commended but the COI and the fact that this company may just not be notable are hard to overcome. I haven't seen evidence yet that they've done anything that any other similar business hasn't and that's where I say it's not notable. Travellingcari (talk) 19:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for your response Travellingcari. I wasn't speaking about anyone in particular. I appreciate your clarification.

Would it be recommended to include a brief, neutral of course, history of the company? There are other things that could be included, but it's difficult to back up the facts because HTQ is a young, private company. What information is not included that would improve the perception of the entry's validity? I suppose I'm just not understanding how other Internet companies in the U.S. like HTQ have wiki pages, yet it's being argued that HTQ should not. Thanks. --Kristahtq (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't have time to look at those at the moment but other stuff exists is generally not a good reason to assert that a particular article should. Try and look at this from an outside point of view --- and I know know if there are answers, but it's what I think of. Why should a non-customer/user care about this company? What's special (notable) about them? I don't know if there are answers to these, but perhaps they'd be a step in the right direction. Travellingcari (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• I understand. I knew that was coming. :) There are certainly answers - the thing is, there are so many neat things that could be mentioned about HTQ, but those things cannot necessarily be proven by secondary sources. For example, HTQ is the largest independently owned company in its industry. Because it's a private company, however, the public doesn't have access to that information.

I will add a brief history to the page. Please let me know if it adds or detracts. Thank you!--Kristahtq (talk) 21:14, 13 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.