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. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AtHomeNet[edit]

Contested PROD. Created by a single-purpose account, possible conflict of interest. There are a few possible sources out there, along the lines of this, but nothing very substantial. The company does not appear to meet the corporation notability guideline. Chick Bowen 06:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From "Notability: Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations." The company has estbalished itself as the predominant provider in this niche market, and Susan Sanders has been featured in an article in USA today in the past. it is unfair to subject smaller companies without huge PR budgets to the same "Sources" requirement as larger companies...thus the very idea of "Notability" is subject to the interpretation of the individual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.15.97.161 (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The gentleman above said "nothing very substantial"...what does "very substantial" mean? All of this is subject to interpretation. It is unfair to hold a smaller company to the same standards as an IBM or something, where the press will be willing (free of charge) to interview, research and report facts on a company. Susan Sanders has been consulted by management firms, and is considered an industry expert on the growing genre of community websites [1] This from the Washington Post .Com site about the USA Today Article. [2] This is the actual USA Today Article [3] Trying to apply a universal standard to everyone business of any size is rather unfair, why not wait for someone to attempt to disprove with facts the existence of this company and any of the facts about the market it operates in and the position it holds? There have been many reports on this business, but a great deal of them are not online, or not online anymore. Do you have a suggestion of what would be a noteworthy soruce to validate the facts on our page?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Edenrage (talk • contribs) 16:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable and probably advertising. I've already had a long discussion with Edenrage about the difference between notability and verifiability, pointed out that the above sources s/he is citing are just passing mentions, and asked for sources that show notability to be added to the article. If someone who works for the company, as Edenrage has indicated s/he does, can't find sources to show notability, I'm not holding my breath that this is going to happen.--Fabrictramp (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In notability it states: "Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations"

Yes, we have had this discussion Fabrictramp, and I appreciate your help. The issue I have is not with verifiablitity. I put the references there becuase it couldn't hurt. I am trying to locate other sites that host the other articles and references made to the comapny and its founders. If we are discussing whether or not the company or what it does is notable, you need not look very far to see that the niche market of community websites is growing, with some states such as California as of Jan 1st passing laws now that mandate that homneowners associations post their agenda 4 days prior to a board meeting into a forum where it is accessible by all. It was once unheard of for community websites and the technology to pioneer software specifically for them would be a mainstay, but now it is. That is fact. For wikepedia to ignore this would certainly not be fair given the plethora of useless information about pop icons and obsucre cultural references denoted here. Again, we are all at the mercy at whether or not someone interprets this companies' role in that industry and the industry itself as "notable". An argument can be lodged either way. the fact is the large scale refereneces you want in TIME magazine and Wallstreet week don't exist yet...but should that mean the company is not deserving of a listing? Notability can be estbalished through other means than 3rd party articles even by it's own definition on wikipedia...and like most of the other definitions, there is room for interpretation and it clearly states that a subject can still be notable without the commonly accepted things. Advertising is just that. Fact is fact. Everything in this article is a verifiable fact, so while I agree there should be a debate on notability, the idea that it could be construed as advertisement was already suggested by you as not an issue per our previous chats on your talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edenrage (talk • contribs) 19:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as insufficiently notable. As yet no non-trivial coverage of subject by reliable, third-party published sources. — Satori Son 15:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another article I am putting on the page...digging for more, and have some coming up in January in Condoowners Magazine, hopefully on their online edition as well. http://www.techsynergy.com/default.asp?pageID=101 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edenrage (talk • contribs) 22:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. On the right side of barely notable. Needs cleanup as an encyclopedia entry. [Comment: I'm the admin who deleted it when it was an expired prod.] — Athaenara ✉ 00:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)--Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I suggest the creator of the article go add some POV to a random article - say Israel/Palestine, or the either the Bush or Clinton articles. That will protect from being a dreaded "single-purpose account". Mykej (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet "is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources' requirement. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:COI and WP:spam/advertising. A visit to User:Edenrage, creator of the article, tells us all we need to know. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 18:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made it quite clear before I was new at this process. I had no idea the page "User Edenrage" had the same content as the profile in question. that was obviously a mistake, as what would the purpose have been of putting that under my own profile entry. It has been edited accordingly. I have edited other wikipedia pages in the past, including Eartha Kitt, Vicki Guerrero, and a couple of others, but keep in mind I am new to this process. I have already included at least one secondary source, and more are coming. Instead of just saying "delete", i appreciate the editors who are giving sound advice on how to make the page better and fit all of the guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edenrage (talk • contribs) 22:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam, conflict of interest, single purpose account, blah blah blah. Pharmboy (talk) 01:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we are being asked here to be tougher on his sort of thing, to keep Wikipedia from turning into a sort of directory or compendium of corporate vanity listings. JohnCD (talk) 14:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: People have tried to find some sources, and it pains me slightly to see so much cleanup effort expended towards a doomed end, but this article is still well on the wrong side of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). They got a brief press mention in USA Today which was then picked up (also briefly) in the Washington Post. There's a sympathetic piece at Georgia Business Journal (which I don't know, but there are lots of business magazines that are in the habit of promotion more than trying to cover a subject), and a press release at [4]. It is really hard to write a good, NPOV article when the sources are as thin as this, which is why notability needs to mean more than just "the company got a few press mentions". Kingdon (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to some of the comments on the debate for "ATHOMENET"... if my account were a single purpose account, I would not have, nor would continue to make edits on other pages. (See Eartha Kitt, Vicki Guerrero,Fishbone, Terence Trent D'arby, Regina Carter, not to mention "Snapple" etc... and whatever else I do henceforth....)

The only requirement in COI that is met is that I have an affiliation, but cleary in COI it does not suggest that simply because of that affiliation that I cannot make an entry. With respect to neutral point of view, the article is clearly unbiased.

Much like the editor "Athenara" stated, is it not better to let an entry stand on the right hand side of "barely notable" as Athenara put it? If editors continuously make the decision to choose what they personally feel is notable, that takes the power out of the hands of the encyclopedia readers and contributors and defeats the spirit of wikipedia's purpose as an online resource does it not? and as for Spam or advertising, information is just that. There is no advertising here...the article states the purpose of the firm, what they do, and how it has impacted a growing niche market that will only continue to become larger and more well known. HOw many third party sources are needed to establish "notablility" Is it 2, 3, 10? Is there a concensus, or if there was only one in TIME LIFE magazine would that be enough? Again, if the spirit of wikipedia is to punish any fact, entity, or subject that does not appear what is obviously a very non-descript (depending on the editor's point of view)# of publications of various notability themselves, then 1/2 of the things listed in Wikipedia should not be here. I appreciate this forum to debate this topic, and I wish that users like me as well as editors could all weigh in becuase the people that are truly effected are often times oblivious to these debates that have the most effect on the people who look to wikipedia for information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.15.97.161 (talk) 16:06, 20 December 2007 (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.