Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ineedhits

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was no consensus. FCYTravis 7 July 2005 06:57 (UTC)

Ineedhits
Corporate advertising; the page was created by the boss. -- Hoary 06:24, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
 * Delete advertising. JamesBurns 06:30, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep As brought up on Talk:Ineedhits, what is the minimum size to be included on WP?  Where is the line between notability and non-notable start?  IMO, the article isn't written as an advertisement so it can't be deleted as advertisement.  Perhaps not in the style of wikipedia, but that doesn't merit deletion.  From WP:NOT I find this:
 * Advertising. Articles about companies and products are fine if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Further all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs.
 * Since Hoary put this up for VFD and JamesBurns vote delete based on advertising, I ask you two what exactly is not third-party verifiable...or did you not attempt to verify it? From the about page on their site, I find a lot of information that is verifiable on Ineedhits article (founder, date, location, .  This page verifies that it's a partner. I'm sure more of it could be verified given the time.  I see no reason to delete this based on the page being an advertisment. Cburnett 07:01, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't attempt to verify it. Yes, it's probably all verifiable, and it doesn't obviously fail any acceptability criterion. Odd, though, that a company whose business is boosting other companies' hits has to wait for its boss to create its own article on WP. (Couldn't any of its customers, etc., have done this?) Certainly it's permissible, even praiseworthy, to write articles about the business one knows best; to demonstrate the absence of a desire to advertise, ClayCook may wish to write or contribute to an article about at least one of his company's rivals. -- Hoary 07:58, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
 * How about Baker's Squre or Bennigan's or Blimpie or Lone Star Steakhouse or Macaroni Grill or Taco John's or Sbarro or Sizzler or Tastee Freeze? That's just some large restaurant chains (one's that I've heard of) and they don't even have articles.  I disagree with your "if it's notable enough then someone else would have written it" test.  Cburnett 14:51, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of any of those restaurant chains, but perhaps that doesn't mean anything: I guess that they're US, that you're in the US, and that they haven't yet arrived in the part of the world where I happen to be -- which might well be lucky from an urban design PoV. I don't think I wrote "if it's notable enough then someone else would have written it". The institution whose LAN I am now using -- my employer -- didn't have its own article when I first looked, even though I was sure that it qualified; precisely because I work here, I didn't supply an article. I waited a bit, and then returned to find that other people had written it. -- Hoary 02:27, 2005 Jun 27 (UTC)
 * Surely to have an objective view some one other than the boss should write the article. I think this is an important point before even thinking about notability Delete P.S. Who made the unsigned comments--Porturology 12:45, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * There are no unsigned comments here (yet). I think you may be confused by Cburnett's continuation of his comment (after a quotation from a policy page) in the form of a new list item. (This wasn't very elegant, but I can't think of a less inelegant solution.) Incidentally, while my gut feeling is of agreement with you, there's no rule that says bosses shouldn't create articles on their own companies, and also of course no rule that says people shouldn't subsequently edit bosses' articles in order to amend any perceived lack of objectivity. -- Hoary 13:26, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
 * Unsigned comments...did you even bother to read it? That said, there's no policies against bosses or employees creating an article about their company.  It's big enough that I can't see how it's a "garage" company, so it's not advertisement.  The only thing left is possible lack-of-objectivity, but that's not addressed by deleting it.  In fact, WP:DP specificially lists this as a reason not to delete. Cburnett 14:51, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Self-promotion. Autobiography. From the 'new page' edit window: "Please do not create an article to promote yourself, a website, a product, or a business (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)." Niteowlneils 17:11, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I have to admit, that's a better reason than the initial votes per advertisement. However, I have to question the use of "promote".  Wiktionary says: To attempt to popularize or sell a product by advertising or publicity..  The article in question is no more of an attempt to popularize or publicize than the thousands of other articles about a company nor is it trying to sell a product (I see very little "market-ese" in it) and I think I've established (or more correctly: no one has countered it yet) that it's not an advertisement.  And, for the record, I have zero ties to ineedhits: none.  The only reason I'm arguing on it's behalf is that I don't see there's sufficient reason to delete it.  I hate to generalize and exhaggerate (as I'm sure there are exceptions) but it seems that you have to be a multi-national corporation or have a 10-digit revenue to not be deleted as advertisement or self-promotion. Cburnett 18:49, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with you if the article hadn't been written by the company's owner. Add in the fact that this guy's company works to boost search engine results, and that creating these articles has the effect of – you guessed it – boosting search engine results, and you've got some pretty obvious self-promotion, IMO. A &#1080; D &#1103; 01D  TALK  EMAIL  18:54, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * The creation of any article goes to boost search results. Cburnett 19:15, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't have a personal stake in search results for, say, Jon Hassler. The same cannot be said for the creator of this page and the biography pages. A &#1080; D &#1103; 01D  TALK  EMAIL  21:48, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Niteowlneils. A &#1080; D &#1103; 01D  TALK  EMAIL  18:23, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete self-promotion. --Etacar11 20:01, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:NOT does say that Wikipedia is not advertising but it reads:
 * Advertising. Articles about companies and products are fine if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Further all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" companies are not likely to be acceptable.
 * Personally, I see nothing wrong with an employee of Baker's Squre or Bennigan's or Blimpie or any of the other restaurant companies listed by User:Cburnett writing an article on his or her company. The test should be notability and verifiability, not who wrote the article.   I believe that ineedhits.com meets the standards for notability of a company and merits an article. Particularly with the awards cited by Clay Cook in his own article, the company is more than a "garage" company. DS1953 22:51, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Jimbo's stated that all that is necessary is verifiability. Cburnett 22:59, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. If it's so freaking notable someone else (not the boss) will eventually write it up. If not, then maybe it's not so notable after all. --Calton | Talk 00:49, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Rewriting would be a useless duplication of effort and I'm sure this company is at least as notable as any given high school. &mdash; Phil Welch 04:24, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, nn. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; June 28, 2005 11:45 (UTC)
 * Can I suggest a Transwiki to Yellowikis. Yellowikis was set up to take this kind of stuff from Wikipedia.--Payo 28 June 2005 13:20 (UTC)
 * Reluctant Keep: Cburnett, I am unable to find anywhere that Jimbo said that all an article needs is verifiability. In various places he's pushed notability, and nearly everywhere he's pushed NPOV. That is where this article might fail. You could possibly make an argument on advocacy, but would have to balance that with the fact that Wiki is effectively infinite. Also, saying that we should not have THIS article because other, better-known companies don't have one is fallacious, along the lines of "I'm not happy so no one should be happy." No one has made a valid Vfd argument for or against based on actual Wiki policies, so I see no strong reason to get rid of it. Unsinkable 28 June 2005 20:14 (UTC)
 * I quote from the above link: "It is that it is information which is verifiable and which can be easily presented in an NPOV fashion." Cburnett June 28, 2005 20:41 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. It needs to be rewritten at the very least.  However, it exists and is somewhat notable.  Falcon June 29, 2005 22:22 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.