Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HomeFinder Channel 100


 * 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 per remaining notability and promotion concerns. Materialscientist (talk) 04:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

HomeFinder Channel 100

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

A TV / web real estate service. Blatant advertising in my view. Do the references establish notability? &mdash; RHaworth 20:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * First, I am truly not stupid, but I really don't understand.
 * The rules here seem almost too complex for a new member to join in.
 * At my first attempt, I was deleted after it was said that we lacked Notability and were potentially spamming.
 * In response, I re-wrote the article, simplifying, and shared several links to reliable independent news reports or web sites demonstrating recognition. That seems to have won some reprieve from the speedy deletion that welcomed my first effort.
 * Now it seems that we are to be deleted just because we are a company or an organization.
 * However, I note that other organizations are included in wikipedia - even the parent company / owner (Block Communications) of this remarkable venture, and both of the major divisions of that organization. See Block Communications, Buckeye CableSystem, Toledo Blade.
 * I realize that articles are not to be 'ads'
 * There is very little detail here about our service, no prices, no solicitation. Also note, we have no ability to provide service outside our regional footprint, so this article really cannot function as an advertisement.
 * Also Note: I realize that articles are not to be 'local'
 * But every historical event has a locality, or a local beginning.
 * My main interest is in recording the invention of new technologies, Crediting the company that invented the technology, and logging historical developments regarding the evolution of the invention.

IPTV Pioneer (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC) — IPTV Pioneer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * The above seems to have a significant conflict of interest ("our service"). Just because some of your parent company's other holdings are notable doesn't mean you are. What's more, the tone is awfully blatant advertising. Delete. Raymie Humbert (local radar | current conditions) 21:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Blatant advertising, no evidence of notability.--Dmol (talk) 22:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete To the creator: Articles are supposed to be 'about' not 'by'. You have just confirmed a conflict of interest WP:COI. No, the article is not proposed for deletion because it is a company or organisation. It is because someone felt it was advertising for a business or service. I agree, and consider it to be a non-notable business or service to boot. There are no references to establish notability, and the wording screams (OK, a quieter scream than some I've seen - or do I mean heard?) 'this is the message we want you to hear about us'. Every event has a beginning - but not necessarily an article. This is an encyclopaedia, where things of note are recorded and explained. I'm afraid your service hasn't quite got there yet. Some day, when you can demonstrate notability, come back. Probably someone else will have created the article by then... Peridon (talk) 23:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

'''I really cannot believe a worldwide FIRST is not notable. Is there nothing I can do to satisfy your editorial concerns and still provide an entry? Do you know how HUGE will be the long term effect of platform convergence between television and the internet? Did Anybody see the links I posted to industry citations, news reports by companies you have already deemed notable? They were in an earlier version of this article. I left them in, but now I don't know where they went? '''

72.241.22.144 (talk) 03:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC) — 72.241.22.144 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * How do you know how huge it will be? And what is a worldwide first? To call this article blatant advertisting would be an understatement (by the way, typing in bold text doesn't make your point stronger). Delete. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Advertising. I own a shoe store and that shouldn't be written up for Wikipedia either. Carrite (talk) 14:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

1) Differentiating contributors in discussion threads by using bold or colored type face is a common practice in many online discussion forums, No? Typing section heads in bold text is a common way to give structure to an article - even here at Wikipedia - No?

2) How do I know it will be huge? Because Televisions are in every home, and computers in almost every home.  Television manufacturers are already investing huge sums of money in creating IP ready TV's (similar to the advance investment they made in HD for many years before that took off. Computer manufacturers are spending huge sums of money to create computers that play video. A growing consumer trend is that the personal computer is becoming the primary entertainment or television screen. IPTV is a tremendously valuable technology and will some day enrich and change your life almost as much as the Computer, Internet or Cell Phone has changed the life of anybody who grew up before we had them. Asking if this will be huge is like asking, in 1980, regarding the Internet, "How do you know the internet will be huge?" Even better, the computer mouse was invented in about 1960 but did not really go anywhere until XEROX added one to an early office computer. Still it was relatively unknown until Apple added one to it's early computer. Now, nearly every home in America has at least one mouse. It is widely predicted that most new Televisions will be able to play video from internet sources within the next 5 years.

3) Respectfully, this is not a shoe store. A shoe store is a commodity.  There are shoe stores in every city.  HomeFinder Channel 100 is a one of a kind service at the forefront of the next wave of consumer media delivery (IPTV).

Would something like this work better? :

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

HomeFinder Channel 100 is a 24-hour Digital Cable Television Channel and companion web site by Buckeye CableSystem, of Toledo Ohio. Buckeye CableSystem a cable company located in Toledo, Ohio and serves Northwest Ohio and parts of Southeast Michigan. Buckeye CableSystem is a full service cable company including TV, broadband, commercial, and home telephone services. It is owned by Block Communications, alongside The Blade newspaper.

PIONEERING IN PLATFORM CONVERGENCE or WEB ENABLED TELEVISION PRODUCTION HomeFinder Channel 100 creates television and web video from internet based assets with a minimum of human intervention. It is the first locally produced, dedicated real estate channel and web site of this type in the world. Other cable television companies have previously offered similar programming as a Video On Demand service, or have carried real estate programming produced elsewhere. The process invented at HomeFinder Channel 100 is a television production system that used online data and images to simultaneously produce video for both a 24-our television channel and a web site focused on real estate for sale. The process dramatically reduces the studio time needed, and thus the cost of producing and delivering video in the form of television programs or ads. A staff of two produces, sells, and schedules the channel. Studio time required is only 1-2 minutes per :30 spot. This breakthrough makes television production and television advertising available to market sectors, such as Real Estate, that were previously unable to afford it.

The process developed stands as an early stage milestone along the route to the inevitable convergence of Television and Internet Media platforms. Other early stage Internet Protocol Television Video (IPTV) providers included Netflix, Hulu, and Youtube - which serve traditional entertainment audiences as a replacement for the video store and movie theater. Both market sectors now struggling and on the verge of regressing toward extinction.

Many cable television companies also provide internet service via cable modem connections. With capabilities in both television and internet technology, many are also now exploring IPTV. IPTV can deliver web based content to the web connected television. IPTV program delivery costs less than traditional TV delivery. It is said of this technology that it may some day eliminate the concept of "channels" as we know them. The range of multimedia or video programming available to a consumer via IPTV can be as limitless as the number of web pages on the World Wide Web. The former barriers to entry to become a television network or broadcast producer are being removed. The advent of IPTV is redefining what it means to be a media producer or broadcaster in the same way that Blogspot.com once re-invented what it means to be an author, or publisher, and Wikipedia re-invented what it means to be an encyclopedia.

HISTORY AND SIGNIFICANT MILESTONES HomeFinder Channel 100 Was Founded in October of 2007. Launch Promotion began in earnest in March of 2008. The first order was taken on March 31, 2008. The television channel launched on April 17, 2008. By 2009, the television ads were converted to web video and placed on the homefinder100.com real estate search engine. In 2010, the television ads were syndicated to Youtube. In another world-wide first, a proprietary "CURB SEARCH" service was introduced in June of 2010 to deliver real estate search and television quality video to smart phones and mobile devices such as the iPhone, iPod Touch, BlackBerry phones and phones using the Android (operating system).

As to the Notability of this work: Web Links From Reliable Sources show HomeFinder Channel 100 has received media attention and industry support:

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvg/story?section=news/local&id=6075837 http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080411/BUSINESS05/977224736 http://www.419toledorealestate.com/419-toledo-real-estate http://www.sulphurspringsrealty.com/quickfacts.php http://www.worldmarketmedia.com/1893/section.aspx/1470732/buckeye-cablesystemr-launches-new-sunday-morning-real-estate-show-and-curb-searchtm-mobile-web-site http://www.419toledorealestate.com/toledo-real-estate-toledo-homes-for-sale-toledo-homes-toledo-houses-toledo-realtor/toledo-real-estate-gets-mobile

IPTV Pioneer (talk) 01:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry; what aren't you understanding here? Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete: Pure advertisment, nothing more. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 11:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully: What is it you think is being sold? Which words strike you as a sales ploy? I ask these questions because in the Sales world that I live in, this would be a horrible sales pitch. I sell all day long, for a living. Selling involves need exploration, features descriptions, prices, calls to action, requests for communication in the event of questions, contact information, how to order instructions, etc. I don't mean to be dense, but considering where I come from in the sales world.... this is not even close to selling. It is merely describing a service in extremely general terms.

MAJOR RE-WRITE PERFORMED I have updated the page with a major re-write version that I hope you find more acceptable.

This is honest appeal for guidance from wikipedia experts. While I am expert in other practices, I obviously have a lot to learn about Wikipedia.

I want to write an appropriate article. I am not trying to advertise. We do plenty of that already, elsewhere. Innovations in Internet, Television and the emerging IPTV field seem to deserves a place in history. I am trying to make your encyclopedia more complete. Being ridiculed is not helping me learn. Please help me identify and eliminate the troubling parts of this article instead of merely criticizing. Thank you.

IPTV Pioneer (talk) 15:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a public relations tool to amp up your business profile. And AfD is not the place for tutoring individuals in how to write appropriate articles. My advice is to take a step back, read everything Wikipedia provides pertaining to the Manual of Style, policies, and guidelines. If you focus on building the business to be successful, you won't have to worry about writing an article on Wikipedia. If your business becomes successful and notable, I'm sure someone else will more than likely come along and create it for you. Cindamuse (talk) 03:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Clearly this is simply a PR blitz by a startup real estate website/cable business. Notability has not been established. Heck, this is so new that the mere success of this particular venture has not even been established. Cable television real estate channels are nothing new. I went through the "references" and find they are simply PR announcements that a new business is forming in Toledo. One simply lists the website with no additional information provided. The business simply lacks notability.


 * Delete Non notable coi promotion.  Teapot  george Talk  18:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

'''To whom may I report poorly considered, rude, or offensive remarks made by a reviewer? '''

I would like to report user Cindamuse for poor judgment shown by attacking claims that were never made, for rudeness, and for committing the offense of a personal attack.

To the first issue: (poor judgment) Cindamuse writes, "Clearly this is simply a PR blitz by a startup real estate website/cable business"


 * I should think Wikipedia wants it's reviewers to be able to read and write before allowing them to criticize or recommend deletion of articles, that Wikipedia would want it's reviewers to know the criteria for deletion and the criteria for notability, and that Wikipedia would want reviewers to be knowledgeable on topics that they present as cause for deletion or proof of lack of notability. However, Cindamuse apparently cannot read Wikipedia criteria for notability, cannot be bothered to actually read the PR articles being criticized, and apparently knows very little about PR in the first place.

This is shown when Cindamuse writes the following: "Clearly this is simply a PR blitz by a startup real estate website/cable business" and "Notability has not been established."


 * It should be noted that having been the beneficiary of a PR Blitz is NOT a Wikipedia criteria for deletion. Further, having achieved the kind of PR being ridiculed by Cindamuse actually helps establish notability.  Coverage by reliable sources indicate credibility and notability.  Showing very poor logic, Cindamuse writes that the startup was notable enough to garner PR coverage and then says that PR coverage does not establish notability.  I have read Wikipedia's criteria for notability and PR coverage would CLEARLY seem to qualify.

Cindamuse writes, "I went through the "references" and find they are simply PR announcements that a new business is forming in Toledo."


 * Cindamuse seems to feel qualified to write about and CRITICIZE the quality of our PR Blitz even though the comments clearly indicate the references were not read nor understood, and that Cindamuse does not understand PR. This statement that our references are simply about a new business forming is CATEGORICALLY FALSE. It is true that some of the links provided regarding notability resulted from an actual PR Blitz.  But the topic is not a new business.  Two of the references provided are about an EXISTING COMPANY launching a new Cable Television Channel and web site.  Two more references are about additional, NOTABLE accomplishments that took place TWO YEARS AFTER startup.  This means the channel was NOTABLE when it started, and continues to be NOTABLE over 2 years later.

Also, it should be fairly obvious to anybody qualified to write about the quality of a PR Blitz that this Wikipedia article is not a PR Blitz in the first place. Again, Cindamuse is not a PR expert, but claims to be qualified to condemn this article as a PR Blitz. That the company knows how to generate a PR blitz is not in question. You may also Google HomeFinder Channel 100 to find even more demonstration of PR blitzes. Further PR blitzes can be generated any time the Company wishes. Also, it should be clear to anyone who claims to recognize a PR Blitz that a PR blitz would only be useful if targeted at an audience who is capable of buying the company or product. HomeFinder Channel 100 sells nothing that can be sold to the whole World - therefore this is not a PR Blitz. What is relevant for publication to the whole world are notable industry firsts - especially ones that involve developing technologies and those that improve people's lives by improving access to mass media.

Cindamuse continues to show poor judgment regarding Wikipedia criteria for deletion when writing, "Heck, this is so new that the mere success of this particular venture has not even been established".


 * If we indulge Cindamuse, then one might think that being unsucessful was a Wikipedial criteria for deletion? But look - there are articles about the Ford Edsel, and about the Delorean Motors. So what is the point of this observation?

Immediately after writing that we are "too new" Cindamuse states that we are not new at all when wrtiing, "Cable television real estate channels are nothing new".


 * It seems that we are both "too new" and "nothing new" at the same time. This clearly implies that HomeFinder Channel 100 is not notable because it is not new.  This implies a business type must be new to be notable.  However, this is NOT a Wikipedia criteria for notability.  I might agree that there is nothing new about a cable real estate channel (in and of itself), however, the statement was NEVER made that HomeFinder Channel 100 is notable simply BECAUSE it is a cable television real estate channel.  It is listed as a cable television real estate channel because this is A PERTINENT FACT relevant to a larger story.  Why attack a fact? If you are going to attack things because they are not new, then why don't we delete every article submitted in the last century about every newspaper?  Why not delete every article submitted in the last quarter century about a cable news network, or cable television channel?  Obviously there is nothing new about a newspaper, or about a specific newspaper such as The Blade (newspaper).  Obviously there is nothing new about Cable Television or a specific Cable Television Company such as Buckeye CableSystem.  If any of these are notable enough for articles, it is because of the historical facts of their very existence, as well as because of what they have done, especially any innovations accomplished - but NOT because of what they are.  In the same way HomeFinder Channel 100 was not said to be notable BECAUSE it was a real estate channel.  However, it IS NOTABLE as cable television real estate channel that does things other cable television real estate channels have never done.  It is notable enough that reliable and unrelated 3rd parties have covered the developments that make HomeFinder Channel 100 the first cable television real estate channel to do the things it has done.  It is notable that this channel is combining old technologies such as cable television, with new technologies including web video and mobile video, to serve certain consumers (home sellers and buyers make up over half the population of the USA) in ways that have NEVER been done before.

Cindamuse continues to add insult and rudeness when writing, "Wikipedia is not a public relations tool to amp up your business profile.".


 * This is a Personal attack, which should not happen in any online community. I take great offense to the idea that I would stoop to using Wikipedia to 'amp up my business profile'.  I am not stupid.  I know this is not the purpose of Wikipedia.  HomeFinder Channel 100 already has an amped business profile.  HomeFinder Channel 100 is already all over the WWW, is already in the news regionally, and already ranks #1 on Google for the best search term in it's market.  Far be it from HomeFinder Channel 100 to misuse Wikipedia.

'''HomeFinder Channel 100 simply wishes to be recognized for notable accomplishments that rank as industry firsts. These accomplishments may not seem immediately notable to industry outsiders, but they have clearly been given press coverage by reliable sources. The accomplishments are significant developments in an emerging technology (IPTV). They impact a large part of society (anybody who buys or sells real estate). In the absence of accurate publication, others may come along and wrongfully assume they developed an innovation when it has in fact already been developed. It seems to me that an encyclopedia should be a reliable source as to whether or not an innovation exists, and who developed it. To this end, my contribution seems worthwhile and in fact completely within the spirit and intent of Wikipedia

It may be that somebody else may write about these things later, but why make a point of crushing the spirit of a contributor who did not wait until later? '''

Also, speaking in general, those of you who call this article an "AD" clearly do not understand advertising very well. I am in advertising so I know that this article would make a horrible ad. It does not fulfill ANY of the criteria for a good ad. There is no promise of benefits for a purchaser, no detailed feature list, no price, not even a mention of something available for sale. There is no invitation to buy, no request to contact the company with your questions, not even one call to action.

Also, I would like to report Teapotgeorge for being rude. Having a Wikipedia COI is not grounds for deletion, but grounds for extra care in writing, re-writing, cleaning up - per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest which says, in part:

Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of the related article they are editing, particularly if those edits may be contested. Editors who disguise their COIs are often exposed, creating a perception that they, and perhaps their employer, are trying to distort Wikipedia.


 * I have already declared my interests. I am affiliated with HomeFinder Channel 100.  I am interested in making Wikipedia better by making sure it includes notable innovations.

Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias. Be guided by the advice of other editors. If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, try to identify and minimize your biases, and consider withdrawing from editing the article. As a rule of thumb, the more involvement you have with a topic in real life, the more careful you should be with our core content policies—Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Verifiability—when editing in that area.


 * Just because I am close to HomeFinder Channel 100 does not mean I cannot write the article. I have removed any semblance of self promotion and tried to merely document notable events and innovations.

FROM WIKIPEDIA - PERMISSION TO WRITE ABOUT YOUR COMPANY: (at link last given) If you write in Wikipedia about yourself, your group, your company, or your pet idea, once the article is created, you have no rights to control its content, and no right to delete it outside our normal channels. Content is irrevocably added with every edit, and once added will not be deleted just because the author doesn't like it any more. Any editor has the right to add or remove material to the article within the terms of our content policies. If there is anything publicly available on a topic that you would not want included in an article, it will probably find its way there eventually. More than one user has created an article only to find themselves presented in a poor light long-term by other editors. If you breach our editing policies or "edit war" in an attempt to obtain a version of your liking you are likely to have your editing access removed.

In addition, if your article is found not to be worthy of inclusion in the first place, it will be deleted, as per our deletion policies. Therefore, don't create promotional or other articles lightly, especially on subjects you care about.

''FINALLY: I AM ABOUT TO ESCALATE TO CONTENT DISPUTE because my article DOES NOT meet the requirements for deletion, and editors who have commented so far are not acting in the spirit of Wikipedia as shared on your own COI Page

WIKIPEDIA CONTENT POLICES Primacy of basic content policies


 * All text created in the Wikipedia main namespace is subject to rules covering criteria for articles (what Wikipedia is not); encyclopedic quality (verifiability and original research); editorial approach (neutral point of view); as well as the Wikipedia copyright policy. All editors are expected to stick closely to these policies when creating and evaluating material, and to respect the good faith actions of others who edit content to ensure it complies with these policies.
 * Who has written the material should be irrelevant so long as these policies are closely adhered to. The imputation of conflict of interest is not by itself a good reason to remove sound material from articles. However, an apparent conflict of interest is a good reason for close review by the community to identify any subtle bias.
 * Where an article is about something obviously important, but was written with too much COI to easily edit, it is often possible to reduce the article to basic identifying information, and then neutral editors can help improve the article.
 * Importance of civility
 * During debates on articles' talk pages and at articles for deletion, disparaging comments may fly about the subject of the article/author and the author's motives. These may border on forbidden personal attacks, and may discourage the article's creator from making future valuable contributions.
 * Avoid using the word "vanity" or similar judgmental terms—this is accusatory and discouraging. It is not helpful, nor reason to delete an article. Assuming good faith, start from the idea that the contributor was genuinely trying to help increase Wikipedia's coverage.
 * '''Conflict of interest in point of view disputes
 * Another case can arise in disputes relating to non-neutral points of view, where underlying conflicts of interest may aggravate editorial disagreements. In this scenario, it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. When conflicts exist, invite the conflicted editor to contribute to the article talk page, and give their views fair consideration.''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by IPTV Pioneer (talk • contribs) 19:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments Rightly or wrongly, the longer a poster goes on in AfD, the less people read it. There are many world-wide firsts that are not notable at the time of occurrence, and a lot of them are never notable. I quote: "HomeFinder Channel 100 simply wishes to be recognized for notable accomplishments" - it seems that five (so far) of the regular editors at Wikipedia feel that these have not been demonstrated to be within the bounds of notability as understood here. None of the regular editors (so far) have decided that they do. The references so far as I have checked (not very far as I am on a limited internet connection on a campsite in the Welsh mountains) appear to be brief mentions not real coverage. Peridon (talk) 20:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * WHY DONT YOU FOLLOW YOUR OWN RULES? Having been driven to the conflict of interest and dispute resolution pages here, I don't understand why you don't follow your own rules?
 * The following is from Wikepedia Dispute Resolution Page
 * Avoiding disputes
 * Shortcut:
 * WP:Discussion
 * A variety of positive methods exist for helping to positively resolve disputes, before using formal processes or third-party intervention.
 * Focus on content
 * Shortcut:
 * WP:FOC
 * Further information: Wikipedia:Editing policy
 * The most important first step is to focus on content, and not on editors.Wikipedia is built upon the principle of collaboration and assuming that the efforts of others are in good faith is important to any community.
 * When you find a passage in an article that you find is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can. If that is not easily possible, and you disagree with a point of view expressed in an article, don't just delete it. Rather, balance it with what you think is neutral. Note that unreferenced text may be tagged or removed because of our policy on Verifiability.

I submit that since the major rewrite, the focus of editor objections is on ME due to issue of 'apparent' COI (absolutely not grounds for deletion all by itself) or on my MOTIVE as in advertising or PR accusations(absolutely and demonstrably false). The CONTENT should be the thing we talk about. Is it true? Is it notable? If so then it should be allowed. I have revised and re-written to make it about the content - but the editor comments continue to be about my person and my motivation - without regard to Wikipedias own guidelines. See notability. Somewhere in here I read that coverage by three independent sources is considered proof of notability, and that the reference does not have to be the main point of the independent article.
 * BTW: Neutralhome - we are WAY PAST Speedy Delete...That is not even an option.
 * BTW: To All, Thanks for the helpful civility and suggestions about how to make my article better.


 * Move to close and speedy delete as a blatantly promotional article. Why wasn't this CSD'd in the first place?  elektrik SHOOS  03:49, 3 August 2010 (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.