Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZipRealty, Inc.

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 of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 05:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ZipRealty, Inc.

• This article appears to be simply an advertisement for the company. --Howcheng 19:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to add entry in VFD list. --Howcheng 06:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This is nothing more than a company's publicity page. I'm surprised it wasn't sent to speedy deletion. -- Ritchy 2 August 2005
• Comment: How does one create a legitimate company profile page? I saw that Intuit had done the same thing, so I used the format they used here. Any assistance or advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. -- 67.111.191.10 3 August 2005
  • Comment: Intuit, Inc. is a much different case, as they have made a significant impact in the business world. The article also presents a neutral point of view and presents both information and criticism of the company. The ZipRealty article, on the other hand, is nothing more than a brochure. --Howcheng 05:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Thank you for the feedback. I will update the company description accordingly. As for who determines what a "significant impact" on the world is, are there guidelines for this? Or is this just a subjective judgment on the state of Intuit? I'm sure if you ask each and every company (and their respective founders), if they have had an impact on a certain industry, they will all tell you that they have. Are you using specific measures such as: company revenue, # of employees, or something else? Again, I firmly believe that ZipRealty is changing the real estate world - but that is just my opinion. With respect to Wikipedia, I only want to abide by the guidelines setforth. Thanks for the input - this is a learning process for me. Please feel free to let me know if there are any other 'commercial' pieces in the article. I'm open to all suggestions. Thanks. -- 67.111.191.10 5 August 2005.
• Delete FOR NOW b/c obviously this article is NPOV. Quick google test of "ziprealty criticism" brought up some good criticism of the company which, due to NPOV, should be incorporated into the article in good faith. otherwise, no one will think the article is NOT a brochure. if you do so, i believe people will change their minds since ziprealty does bring in a lot of hits on google.com, though it is not a household name like Intuit yet. By the way, 67.111.191.10, I took the liberty to condense and tag your comments; in the future, you can sign and timestamp your edits with ~ ~ ~ ~ without the spaces. -- Bubbachuck 00:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I think any NASDAQ listed company meets the WP:NOT standard which says "Articles about companies and products are fine if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" companies are not likely to be acceptable." Publicly traded companies file SEC reports and are definitely verifiable. In terms of notability, listed companies are much more notable than the various big-busted models who are garnering resounding keep votes on today's VfD page or the many fictional characters from movies, games and TV shows that have their own articles. -- DS1953 17:32, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Per DS. I have removed the self promo stuff so the article conforms with NPOV. Dottore So 19:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep after Dottore So's changes. --Howcheng 20:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep after changes. Trollderella 01:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep no reason to delete. --Apyule 01:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • • Comment: updated the 13 markets to 14 markets. added a link to the ZipRealty blog. 01:52, 17 August 2005 (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.