Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vermont Computing, Inc.

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 Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 21:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vermont Computing, Inc.

Seems to be a straight advertisement from a non-notable company. My vote would be Delete Dipics 21:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:SPAM, no assertion that the company passes WP:CORP. Interesting that they list Red Bull as one of their product lines, but merely interesting, not notable. Tevildo 21:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose / Question: If the page were to be edited to reflect what they've done for the state of Vermont as opposed to a list of "What They Do", would it be more acceptable? kvidell 21:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • If you'd like to improve the article you'll have to write only things verifiable through citations of reliable sources and avoid original research. See WP:CORP for guidelines on what sorts of companies generally get kept. Sorry if this seems a little brusque, but you wouldn't believe how many corporate vanity articles we see every day. --William Pietri 21:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --William Pietri 21:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: Given the size of Vermont and the nature of its small towns, there is a lot of respect for organizations that are founded here and manage to do well. It's not usual for a technology company so small out of Vermont to have such a personal impact on the area and its clients. The article can be cleaned up, there is no question about that. Arthemys 22:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Although the AfD process isn't a vote, as such, it'll be helpful if people who want the article to be kept put Keep rather than Oppose in their posts. Avoids ambiguity, and that. Tevildo 22:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I see nothing at all notable about this company. It appears to be a typical strip-mall store and just doesn't seem notable to me. Also, the original article was written by one of the store managers which strikes me as, at best, self-serving. Vermont companies can do well on a nationwide level. If you don't believe me, ask Ben and Jerry. Beaner1 22:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I would like to point out that this process appears to me as a matter of opinion now, versus actually going by rules and regulations. (See previous comment regarding "strip-mall") In my current position, I am not a store manager. My reason for creating the article was out of informational purposes, not advertisement. Time and energy for advertising is best spent elsewhere. Why post an advert somewhere where you don't expect revenue to be generated? Arthemys 23:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. There are not really that many "rules and regulations" here, as it turns out. The guidelines that are recognized at the moment are listed at WP:CORP. Can you help us understand how your business meets these guidelines? You may want to also read WP:VANITY, which talks about the problems which typically arise when an editor has a conflict of interest in the topic he is covering. Kuru ^talk 23:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. The creator of it works there. Skinnyweed 23:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Just to clarify, Arthemys, the author of the article, claimed above that he isn't a store manager. Yet, his user page reads "Vermont Computing, Inc., Randolph, Vermont (July 2004 – Present) Store Manager & Infrastructure Architect". I admit to being confused. As to why try to advertise here. It is already your second google hit. That's never a bad thing. And, as all businesspeople know, free advertising is the best advertising. Beaner1 01:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't know -why- he says he's a manager in his wikipage, but from knowing him and knowing the company (I worked for it a year ago), he is not, and never was a manager.

Instead of attacking them, which I know you're not trying to do, but you're succeeding none the less, how about suggestions in the Discussion page on how to make the page better? If it helps I'll do it myself since I'm not a current employee and haven't been for some time. If you were from the parts of Vermont they service, you'd look at this "discussion" you all are holding with disdain.

I realize it needs to not violate the Corporate page, and that it currently is. If I were to go through and make it less... er... violatey (It's a word, I swear), can the AfD be reversed easily since it's not a vote?

I think they deserve a page and anything I can do to make sure they have one I'd like to attempt with the communities approval. They aren't quite "mom n' pop" as the next comment down says, far from it. Computer sales and repair are only what they do because they happen to have a retail store front, there's also a large consulting back end.

I also have a question. That is: Since you all want things to be cited and what-not, what can we do? I remember there being certificates of incorporation and community appreciation, but those are paper documents. Scanning them would violate the "personal research" clause. What then? Is Wikipedia really so locked-down by their own silly policies that you aren't "good enough" if you don't have web-news coverage to prove it? God forbid the state of Vermont appreciate something without forcing the whole world to know.

-kvidell 03:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless we want 4 million articles on mom & pop computer shops. It's good that they sell Red Bull, though. NawlinWiki 02:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:CORP. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• One Last Comment I think that what it boils down to in my opinion is that local notability does not equal notability on a wikipedia level. WP:CORP is really the best guideline available. It's nothing personal. It says much good about a company to have two (one current and one former) employee trying to get it placed on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, it also says something about it's notability that you two are the only ones that are voting to keep it here. I wish both of you and the company the best. It may seem that we are being unhelpful. But we, at least I, have no good advice on how to turn a non-notable company into a notable one. It is not so much that the article is written like an advertisement (which it is) as it is that the company just doesn't seem to be notable. Unless there is some evidence of notability that hasn't been presented yet, my vote would still stand.Beaner1 04:34, 1 July 2006 (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.