Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fizber (internet company)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Keep. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fizber (internet company)

Fizber (internet company) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Zero notability. No secondary sources in the article mention the website, as far as I can see. There is nothing particularly important, notable, or unique about this website. --- RockMFR 06:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep - I think this article has the same importance as Redfin, Realestate.com.au Limited, ByTheOwner and other articles based on a website or company in the real estate field. I added this site because of its unique features: Drive Score, climate data and statistics for every home, integrated Google maps, moving and relocation services. The visitors of this site can find all the information about events, neighbors (including celebrities), schools etc. around any area in the US free of charge. There is no another FSBO website in the Net, where you can find all these info. Unfortunately, I can’t add all this unique features in the wiki-article, because of lack of additional sources about them (RockMFR, I agree that more independent sources needed, but we also can’t ignore true references in the articles).
So, I think that {{refimprove}} template must be added or at least “Notability” tag (+date), but not the deletion tag. I agree that the article MUST be improved and I’ll do it. I take a keen interest in real estate and mortgage (you can see it from my contributions) and I’m going to expand this and other articles about companies in this field. --- Prokopenya Viktor (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • User has asked me to weigh in, so here I am. Looks to me as if he's done a good job of providing third-party refs. Voting for a tentative keep since it looks as ifhe's done his homework. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • User also asked me to weigh in, I advised him against spamming talk pages, before coming here. It looks like it's well referenced, but I'm no expert on notability criteria for websites. I had a quick look at Wikipedia:Notability (web) and it seems to meet that, also it has far better references than most of the web companies I picked at random from this category Cat:Internet companies of the United States. So I tend towards Keep.English peasant 23:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • User also canvassed me in violation of WP policy. That said, weak Keep per above. -- SECisek (talk) 23:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Thanks for your warnings at my talk page. Unfortunately I did’t know about Wikipedia:Canvassing. It was my first nfD, but nobody replied to it, that is why I was trying to attract the attention of on-line editors. Sorry, I didn’t intend to break wiki-rules. As I see It takes a lot of time to gain an understanding of WP policy. I will try to extend my knowledge. :) -- Prokopenya Viktor (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral to weak delete. I was also canvassed. Most of the references that are actually about Fizber appear to be press releases from Fizber, or based thereon, and not really third-party sources. All of the external links except the one to the official site strike me as linkspam (blogs etc). To my eye this is very close to advertising and promotion, so the best I can offer is neutral. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - It has good sources - web sites, newpapers, Yahoo!. etc., that show some evidence of notability, much of them recent additions to the article. It now meets the Heyman Standard. Not sure why I was canvassed; I'm a mergetarian. Bearian (talk) 01:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • None of the above votes have addressed the concern that this article has no secondary sources not written by the company itself. All of the references are either press releases or have nothing to do with the company at all. --- RockMFR 03:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Bearian. Kogsquinge (talk) 03:50, 5 March 2008 (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.