Talk:Fizber (internet company)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fizber (internet company) article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article was nominated for deletion on 1 March 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

	Companies Portal This article is within the scope of Companies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of companies. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating assessment scale.

[edit] Independent Industry Source

The article, indicated in the reflist (Top 50 Web 2.0 Real Estate Sites), was written by the specialist in real estate field. Internet-company «International Listings» has nothing to do with Fizber and other companies, mentioned in the list. Thus we can consider the published list as independent industry review -- Prokopenya Viktor (talk) 14:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There is not a single, solitary independent news article anywhere that I could find about this website. The only sources cited here are the numerous company press releases and articles about subjects that having nothing to do with fizber.com. Please see my edit summaries for notes about why the content and sources was removed. If you have sources that meet the guidelines at WP:RS and contain significant coverage of this website and not just the subject, then this article will have a better chance of surviving another Afd. Flowanda | Talk 07:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I started to nominate this for AFD when I realized it had already gone through a cycle. I am seriously considering running this through again, because there is nothing in Google about this site that is other than a press release, a blog, or a discussion forum. The self-promotion here is astonishing, and the only reason the article survived the first AfD was because of some massive vote-stacking by the original author of the article. Unless some reliable and independent sources are found for this article within a week, I'm running it up the AfD path again. Horologium (talk) 23:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Horologium. I agree that some sources must be added. I will rewrite this article today. --Prokopenya Viktor (talk) 08:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)