Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roomsurge.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 was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 22:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Roomsurge.com

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

I didn't CFD this since there is one decent source in the article, but it's the only significant coverage I could find of the site/company in any reliable source. To me, this is a non-notable company/website. Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 14:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I was the one who initiated this page. Sorry I didn't cite more sources as I didn't feel more were necessary. I believe the article in question is a spin-off company off another Fortune 200 company which in my view is significant enough :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilytisch (talk • contribs) 15:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

First off, when creating this page, I used the models from both Wikipedia's own documentation AND other similar companies who have been on Wikipedia for a while now (and thus, proving in my view that they are valid submissions to Wikipedia). I tried my best to follow the models of several of those websites that weren't deleted and yet, mine was put up for deletion within 10 minutes. I'm not sure how or what you do to determine which pages stay or why some pages are deleted within 10 minutes that are worded in the exact same way that MANY companies on Wiki are worded. I tried to word this in the most neutral way possible as I have no incentive to advertise this company since (A) I do not work for them and (B) I do not work for the Fortune 500 company that it spun off of. But now I question whether certain editors do have an incentive to keep certain companies on here and delete others. Second, I have seen a LOT of articles on Wikipedia about small start up companies that have similar sources. Now I understand that you're going to counter with the fact that I should not name other examples to try to explain my own. But the prevalence of so many of these articles on Wiki, many that have gone famous AFTER they've been on Wiki for a while now (thus proving they've withstood deletion attempts). For example, Wiggio uses several sources as the basis for the Wiki page's statements. They might use CNET as a source, but upon further examination, the author of the "Cnet" article is actually a college blogger who was given permission to blog on Cnet's technology blog. Would that be considered as "independent" reporting? I think not! So how is that better than what I have here? And one of the sources on RoomSurge's page is from SeekingAlpha which is heavily known in the business community. They even have a page here SeekingAlpha. Would you suggest that that page on Wiki isn't considered as "advertising" or less so than the page that I just posted? What is your rationale? The American court system uses the concept of precedents to determine the biggest landmark cases in our history. Please state your rationale for deleting my page, and tell me why other certain pages weren't deleted. Perhaps if you are right, I might learn something and will contribute better articles in the future. But if you made a mistake, I want my page reinstated and this deletion proposal removed immediately. . I'm just confused as why the page I spent time to write up for no financial incentive whatsoever was considered more as "advertising" than, say, SeekingAlpha, which is actually one of the sources I cited. I know, you said not to talk about precedent again but if American court system uses 99% of the time, precedents - verdicts and opinions of judges from PREVIOUS cases, to determine the fate of present landmark cases I can use that here. So I just can't understand what else I'd have to add (or delete) in order to make my article valid. Do you just want one more cited source? I didn't even name the website itself as a source - a practice I've seen tons of others do - which shows I really tried my best to make this one neutral. Emilytisch (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * — Note to closing admin: Emilytisch (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 00:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete - I don't see a claim to "importance or significance" anywhere in the article—just that they exist. It doesn't appear to meet either WP:Notability (organizations and companies) or WP:GNG. Now that I think about it, it should be up for CSD… I think I'll go do that, in fact. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 00:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Upon looking into this a little further, it's getting more interesting… From "Jonathan Leize"'s Seeking Alpha profile page:"Jonathan is a professional technical trader, financial analyst, and finance journalist working in Chicago. He holds a BS in Economics from Northwestern University."But Google says that he appeared today out of nowhere. A journalist—with zero bylines. A degree from Northwestern—but no Facebook page, Twitter account, nothing. Google also says that his profile image belongs to a Turkish actor named Yağmur Atacan, so I'm calling this article a hoax. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 01:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Please do not delete this any time soon. I will be adding more relevant sources once I get the links / permission to post them here. Thanks. 69.38.79.221 (talk) 00:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * — 69.38.79.221 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete - There is no coverage in reliable sources. Techcrunch is simply a directory listing.  I'm a little dubious on the Seeking alpha article.   And Facebook? No.  -- Whpq (talk) 18:05, 4 June 2012 (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.