Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Support Fusion

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. W.marsh 04:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Support Fusion

A company which is in the same building as monster.com, DEC's former headquarters. And those are the big claims to notability. Of the 500-odd Googles for "Support Fusion" software, the majority are for something else. Private company, no names of major customers, no details of turnover, no evdence presented of significance or innovation. Created by User:Jcuoco, company run by James A Cuoco. I call vanispamcruftisement. Just zis Guy you know? 22:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per VSCA. Fan1967 23:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Krash (Talk) 01:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Support Fusion is in the same facility as Monster and it is DEC's former headquarters, this is not a claim it is a fact. If for some reason this is offensive to someone we can remove it, but it is true. If a more detailed listing of products and customers are required we can do that as well. Please do not down play our company because this article is not completely populated yet. We are a valid entity and while our presence on the web is not dominate as of this time it is growing rapidly. If you search Google for Support Fusion we are the first hit, so I am not sure what the reference above is suggesting. -- Jcuoco (Talk)

• Comment What the reference above is suggesting is that your company is not, at this time, notable, and your only current claim to fame is being in the same building as some notable companies. The guideline for Wikipedia (WP:CORP) is to document companies that are notable, not advertise companies which hope to be. Fan1967 16:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I understand, but that line was not meant to give our company notability, but to merely give notaility to the location. Since that appears to be a problem, that line has been removed. I find it interesting how you can pass judgement on something when you know so little about it. This article has been out there for a very short period of time and has not even been expanded yet. Jcuoco

I am sorry you take this personally (I should have predicted that I guess) - the point was that if the article leads with that, it does not bode well for the rest of it. Do you see what I mean? Just zis Guy you know? 17:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I'm sorry, but you are correct, it is taken personally. If you have ever started something from scratch you would as well. When you have been working hard to create a company and a customer base and then have some anonymous person tell you that it is not notable, what do you expect? I think your criteria for putting companies on Wikipedia should be more black and white. Maybe don't allow any Private companies or only allow companies with revenue over a certain dollar amount. I just find it frustrating to have someone on a free site make a subjective opinion on something and virtually eliminate your entry based on that. Jcuoco

I am sorry if you feel the label of "not notable" is in some way a disparagement of the quality of your company or the work you have put into it. It is not. It is simply an opinion that your company is not well-known or prominent. I also work for a software development company with many excellent offerings and several very well-known clients. I recognize, however, that we are not prominent, though we hope to be someday. We are not listed in Wikipedia.

Your reference to Wikipedia as a "free site" might seem to imply that you view it as some sort of bulletin board. It is not, nor is it a directory, or a vehicle for advertising or self-promotion. It is, in fact, intended to be an encyclopedia. I feel that the standards for inclusion are fairly clear. Fan1967 04:37, 8 March 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.