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. Consensus is that the topic does not meet the general notability guidelines. Miami Sun Post September 27, 2007 is a reliable source. The four PR releases might have a total of sentence or two of article material: July 27, 2007 PR, August 13, 2007 PR, August 16, 2007 PR, and August 20, 2007 PR. MarketShift.com July 27, 2007 is a blog, not a Wikipedia reliable source. inmanwiki.com is a summary of press release material, not a Wikipedia reliable source. Also, the article was improved during the AfD to address promotional concerns. Although the SPA argue keep, no non-SPA has argued keep. It is clear that the delete reasonings reviewed the references and likelihood for other reliable source material and provide the stronger argument. -- Jreferee t/c 15:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fizber.com[edit]

Because there are a confusion of promotional websites reporting on this business site as "news", I'm unable to tell whether this is a legitimate and notable business. Notable for Wikipedia inclusion, that is. It doesn't help that the text is written like a press release touting its importance with a very positive POV. Pig^man 20:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete db-spam JuJube 23:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pigman, I really appreciate your feedback, the article might look like a press release but I did my best to write about this site in a positive manner simply because I used this site's services and I know what I'm writing about.. Now I try to understand why the community made its decision to delete the article. I'm open to the community's suggestions on what should be added/removed from the article to make it a worthy contribution to Wikipedia.Kateh4 09:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC) Kateh4 (the author of the article). Keep. My google Search turned several sources: (1) MiamiSunPost.com "Flagler on Flagler ", By Helen Hill; (2) MarketingShift.com "Can Blogging Sell Your House" By John Gartner. These are not press releases, but the articles written by real people.Kateh4 15:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Kateh4 Note: There's also an article about Fizber.com on InmanWiki, the Real Estate Encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kateh4 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC) — Kateh4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Good article. Lets keep it. The article has reliable third party sources about the subject. IMHO if we delete this article, the same should be done with the article about Zillow.com on Wiki. Anton777 09:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC) Anton777 — Anton777 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strong keep. This is a legitimate company, they have a TRUSTe sign on their site. Covetusa 10:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)covetusa — Covetusa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. very notable. The company does exist. I even found them on the Benefactors page among other companies which donated to Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.31.128.100 (talk) 10:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC) Keep. Although they are new, it seems to be a fast-growing business, they have up to 25k unique users per month, I found it out by using the Quantcast tool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.31.128.100 (talk) 12:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

25K unique users per month is nothing for a startup. Especially one that releases PR stuff as frequently as they do. If they are still in business in two years, then they might be notable. jonathon 16:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

25K unique users per month is more than enough for such a limited niche as FSBO (the National Association of REALTORS puts the FSBO market at about 20% of homesellers). Fizber.com has a clear target in the FSBO, which is estimated to be growing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kateh4 (talk • contribs) 10:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC) — 69.31.128.100 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete, no attribution of notability to independent sources; fails WP:CORP, WP:WEB. Press releases are insufficient to establish notability. --Dhartung | Talk 12:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion about the website's notability, but as the article stands, it is a promotional; either delete or re-write (remove or re-write the "features" section). - Mike Rosoft 14:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to rewrite the features section in a more professional manner to make it sound less promotional. -- Kateh4 14:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Kateh4[reply]

Delete unless notability is reliably sourced. Not a single one of the "keep" votes legitimately addresses the deletion nomination. The article is completely unsourced. The company's own press release does not count, nor does a donation to Wikipedia. Sure it exists - that much is obvious from the website. But is it notable? That hasn't been proven, and my google search didn't find any obvious answers.Wikidemo 17:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- --Rrburke^(talk) 02:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete This is a very new venture. It made a PR splash, but doesn't appear to had an impact. It isn't a new way of doing anything re selling houses.jonathon 08:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the third cite is not a major cite; it's buried into the article. Bearian 14:24, 17 October 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.