User talk:Tweedlebugb

o Cowabata|Moosato Cowabata]] (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Homegain.com
Please do not make personal attacks. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Homegain
Please do not make personal attacks. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you create an inappropriate page, you will be blocked from editing.  Neil N   talk  ♦  contribs  23:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:CORP for what we consider are notable companies. Specifically, you should provide links to reliable secondary sources which have written about Homegain. -- Neil N   talk  ♦  contribs  01:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Why this keeps being deleted
First of all, let me assure you that I have absolutely no connection with Homegain. I'm a newspaper reporter/editor in a different part of the country, so I don't have a dog in this fight.

There are two major, fundamental problems with the article you've written. The first is the point of view you've taken toward the company. You accuse them of shady dealings in their business, but this does not adhere to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, which basically dictates that, when a subject is controversial, both sides of the issue must be presented fairly and dispassionately. Your article fails that policy pretty badly. Basically your article is a soapbox from which you rail against the company. It doesn't matter whether you are right or wrong. It simply isn't permitted in an online encyclopedia like Wikipedia, period. This is not a forum to address perceived wrongs.

The second problem is the notability of Homegain.com itself. When measured against Wikipedia's notability standards for web sites and online businesses, the company is simply not notable enough to deserve its own article. There are no citations from reliable sources to show that the company is notable enough (or infamous enough, from your point of view) to merit its own article. There's not much you can do about that – a company is either notable or it isn't.

I think your accusations against the admins here is unfounded. (I'm not an admin, by the way.) There's no grand cover-up scheme perpetrated by Homegain.com to prevent this article from existing. It's simple enforcement of the longstanding Wikipedia policies I set forth above. Nothing more, nothing less. The editing community at Wikipedia is simply to large and diverse for such an effort to be organized.

As for your examples of Zillow.com and ZipRealty: ZipRealty is a NASDAQ-listed publicly traded company, so it is pretty much automatically notable. (The article needs a little work to tone down the news-release style.) Zillow.com has several reliable sources cited, and the criticism of the company is fairly even-handed and dispassionate. More to the point, "other articles exist" is not a valid rationale for keeping an article.

If you are seeking a place to air your grievances with Homegain, Wikipedia just isn't the proper place. You can start your own web site, write letters to the editor of your local newspaper, contact an investigative reporter at a local TV station, or something like that. There are ways to get this done, but a Wikipedia article just isn't one of them. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way, your vandalism edit to ZipRealty certainly doesn't help your case at all. Do anything like that again and you will be blocked. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)