Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AtomicPark.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 of the debate was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 00:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

AtomicPark.com
Makes a minor assertion of notability via some local awards but, my concern is that the article is one of two edits by User:Atomicpark (the other edit was to upload the company logo). --Alan Au 00:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Advertising abuse of wikpedia; non-notable company Bwithh 00:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable, #33,060 in Alexa traffic rank. *drew 01:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable per above. --W.marsh 02:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - Blatant advertising. TDS  (talk • contribs) 03:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. NN, as mentioned above. PJM 04:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Never thought I'd say this, but keep. This is possibly the least obnoxious, least self-promotional, most neutral, factual, documentary articles I've ever seen about a dot-com. They're relatively well known, it seems, and have been around for quite a while, in Internet time. If this is kept, I can use it as an example of what a decent article about a commercial website should look like! &mdash; HorsePunchKid &rarr; &#x9F9C; 05:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not encyclopedic. —Cleared as filed. 09:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and I don't often say that in respect of spam, but this does appear to be a notable company. Article reeks of POV and needs cleanup. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 13:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. Even though this was added by an AtomicPark.com employee, HorsePunchKid has a point: this is probably the best wiki article about a company by an employee of a company I've ever seen.  I'm a bit conflicted on this one because while I certainly don't want to encourage companies to start doing write-ups about themselves on wikipedia (because 90% of them will be marketingspeak drivel that ends up in AfD), if they do, this is how they should be doing it.  As for notability, they fall well below Newegg, but they seem to be a moderately popular software retailer... notable enough that I would definitely vote keep had this article been added by a third party.  As it stands I'm leaning weak keep assuming good faith.--Isotope23 14:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep per above. Very good points made. -Haon 02:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. Well of course my vote is to keep it, I'm the guy who wrote it. Yes, I am an AtomicPark.com employee but I think I did a good job making the article as neutral as possible. I could have just as easily registered as an unbiased 3rd party and hidden the fact that I work for the company, but I'm an honest and straightforward guy. And why is it that a company needs to be as big as Amazon to be considered notable? If there are any problems with this article, why is it simply not just edited? --Atomicpark
 * Your first question is a leading question that takes a falsehood, an erroneous description of our WP:CORP criteria, as its premise and is thus unanswerable. The answer to your second question is: Because Wikipedia is not Yellowikis. Uncle G 20:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. Nice and neutral, but I'm questionable on the notability (many google hits, but mostly to ad-related items) and still feels a little too much like vanity and linkspam.  If Atomicpark feels any better, I'd vote delete whether or not I knew that the creator was associated with the company. --Syrthiss 16:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep any verifiable content in this page. Trollderella 17:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, with regret. Nicely done, and I strongly encourage the author to contribute elsewhere on Wikipedia. But it doesn't meet proposed guidelines WP:WEB or WP:CORP. I'd encourage the author to save this and resubmit when AtomicPark is more demonstrably notable. E.g., with more news article mentions, ideally some non-local ones. --William Pietri 18:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Delete I'm afraid. HorsePunchKid and Isotope have a point, and it's well written, but it's still an ad for a nn subject. AndyJones 18:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Being the subject of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article, this company satisfies the first WP:CORP criterion. Keep. Uncle G 20:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * technically, one != "multiple". I'm not entirely sure that isn't a routine article either, which would make 0. :) --Syrthiss 20:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * "One" doesn't equal multiple, but there is other news coverage as well. There's an CNET article that I've found and am thinking of adding. As for the news article:  A major point of the exclusions in the WP:CORP criteria is to exclude the humdrum "Acme Corp will be opening late for Christmas again this year" style of article and simple self-publicity.  (See this for the sort of self-sourced press release which doesn't count.)  The MJS article, in contrast, is a feature article wholly devoted to the company, and not just a notice of extended shopping hours.  Uncle G 00:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with HPK and Uncle G FRS 20:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep; the case to keep it has the support of some editors whose judgement is usually good, and that gets my attention. Give it a good thorough NPOV checkout, and see how it looks then. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 21:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with FRS. Also, WP:CORP is a guideline, not a rule, pillar or policy. -- Perfecto [[Image:Flag_of_Canada.svg|25px|Canada]] 05:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff 14:59, 14 November 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.