Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Getmyhomesvalue.com

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. PhilKnight (talk) 20:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getmyhomesvalue.com

Dubious notability. The sources are borderline, at best, or incidental. G-news doesn't show anything better out there either. 9Nak (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on previous version

Strong Delete It's been deleted several times also, put a block for the article --Numyht (talk) 19:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Eeek, that is quite a spammy article -- and quite a history, too. By all means, salt it...and add some oregano, thyme, perhaps a dash of Tabasco sauce for some flavour. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spammy article? I argue strongly against that. Please review my history. As a resident of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, I find what this company has been able to accomplish - being named one of the top 500 fastest growing companies in the US without the benefit of venture capital - to be quite a feat. Especially when other major online companies are not able to become profitable without venture capital. Please reconsider. JonathanBentz (talk)

Delete, insufficient notability from reliable sources, ~~reads like an ad~~. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal opinion - while I don't profess to be the world's best online encyclopedia writer - this article does not read like an ad. Maybe this one - Zillow.com, but not Getmyhomesvalue.com. Have to disagree with Nawlin. JonathanBentz (talk)

Delete. I dispute Nawlin's assertion that it reads like an add, but I agree fully that it lacks in demonstrated notability and reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 21:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. All sources seem of dubious notability, or generated by the article's subjects in some way. Even this inc.com reference doesn't really cut it as a reliable source. Also vote to salt. justinfr (talk) 21:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Comment. You're right, I spoke hastily. Inc comment withdrawn. justinfr (talk) 12:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change to keep. I've done a major rewrite of the article that I think substantially improves things. The recent growth and coverage, in my opinion, definitely makes them notable. As long as we can keep the article not reading like an advert... justinfr (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inc. doesn't cut it as a reliable source? Then why are they considered a notable magazine... notable enough to be listed in your online encyclopedia. JonathanBentz (talk)

Comment Here's the magazine list, and maybe you can scroll through the pages and tell us where you rank on it. I have a feeling that being the 3,782nd fastest growing company in the U.S. probably won't be considered that notable. Mandsford (talk) 02:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GetMyHomesValue.com has received word from Inc. that they will be in the Top 500 of the 2008 list. This list will be released on Wednesday, August 20. Projections done by GetMyHomesValue.com place themselves in the top 200 - which would place them in the top 4% of the fastest growing co's in the nation. While not #1... being in the top 4% is certainly more notable than being no. 3,782. JonathanBentz (talk)

Comment. Please refer to WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOR. Until it has actually occurred and has been published, it shouldn't be the subject of an article. Also, if you have the inside scoop on this, please also read WP:COI. justinfr (talk) 13:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to apply the crystal ball theory or predict. As I've already stated by creating this entry, I believe this company has established itself as notable enough to be listed. While the Inc. announcement for 2008 hasn't been made, would GetMyHomesValue.com making the top 5% of Inc.'s list of fastest growing companies give it enough notability in the eyes of editors to avoid deletion? I understand the idea of not publishing rumor or speculation, and as you can see on the GetMyHomesValue.com entry, there is no rumor or speculation about their Inc. magazine ranking. But, it seems to me that the personal life section of every celebrity Wiki (for example, see Jennifer Aniston) likely has some rumored information included. Regardless of notoriety, seems like a conflict here. JonathanBentz (talk)

Delete unless there is some really reliable good third-party evidence for its importance, preferably in a financial sense. The alexa rank quoted seem very low indeed for a successful company of this sort. If that';s the best even they can say for themselves, it's not yet notable--and in my view, very close to a speedy G11 as advertising. DGG (talk) 04:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oooohhh, tomorrow (August 20) is the big day. Did getmyhomesdotcom make it into the top 200? Again, I'm pretty sure it's already mentioned in the magazine list, but drum roll anyway. Mandsford (talk) 01:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand some editors feel the reference list didn't establish Getmyhomesvalue.com's notability, but those have now been updated. Also, although Mandsford was convinced that GetMyHomesValue.com was on the 2007 list (they weren't), they are on the 500 list for 2008. 785% growth for a company with no startup venture capital over a four-year period is pretty notable, is it not? JonathanBentz (talk)

Comment. I'm convinced. I made some substantial changes to the article in anticipation of a keep decision. justinfr (talk) 14:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In looking at the references I certainly would consider them to be reliable. I vote to include. Davidalanco (talk) 12:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shereth 20:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - due to a fairly last-minute rewrite of this article it is being relisted to get a better consensus on the current status of the article. The text of the discussion up to this point has been hidden for readability, but ought not be discounted outright by the closing administrator. Shereth 20:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - rewrite improved the style, but still leaves a topic lacking in substance. The article is still nn spam --T-rex 01:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The references consist of 1. The Inc mention. 2. A piece that is actually about the subject's corporate parent with a small mention of the subject 3. A directory listing devoid of any evidence that getting the listing requires any notability. 4. A link to the corporate parent's website and 5. An award from a locally based business paper. The question is does that count as being the "subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". Inc counts for something, although I cannot imagine that there is any precedent that all Inc 500 companies are notable. Perhaps if Inc had actually written an article about the subject... The Central Penn Business Journal counts for something although the criteria for this award are unclear. The article's claim to notability that the firm required no venture capital is meaningless without context. Is there any evidence that this is one of X number of companies that achieved $3 MM in revenue without venture capital financing? Its not quite cutting it. The company's growth is admirable, but being admirable isn;t notable. You have to demonstrate that enough people cared abough about your success to write about it. I won't call it spam, although its one of the more blatant conflict of interest cases I have ever seen. Montco (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insufficient notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.