Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puget Custom Computers

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 nomination was delete. Proto///type 10:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is spam. Plus it has grocer's apostrophes. And it fails WP:CORP ($2.5m is a very small computer maker - my business unit, one of several in the firm, spends about twice that on hardware annually). Absent any credible evidence of significance, delete. And remove fomr the various articles to which it has been added; I don't think, for example, that Dell regard them as terribly high on the hit list of competitors. Do read this article and Ideal Life Settlements back to back for the full spam flavour. Just zis Guy you know? 22:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Important addendum: See this link [1] from Seattle based search engine optimisation company Hay Meadows, and note that this article was created by User:HayMeadows, all of whose edits relate to subjects on the linked SEO examples page. This is SEO spam. Just zis Guy you know? 07:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Isn't "Greengrocer's apostrophe" the more usual term? :) Tevildo 22:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It seems to have established a niche in the custom computer market. See http://www.silentpcreview.com/article248-page1.html as an example of independent coverage. "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I don't really think it's appropriate to criticise the grammar of an article on AfD. You could fix it yourself, but I suppose editing an article you put up for deletion is kind of silly. But criticising the grammar of an article / user's edits (and the creator of this article is actually a registered user) is not really considered kosher according to WP:CIVIL - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 22:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The user is called HayMeadows; there is an SEO company by that name; the user's edits are all related to items on the "SEO examples" page of the SEO company's website. Just zis Guy you know? 07:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Plenty of sources available in the article, and it seems to have shown up on the radar more than initially indicated in the nom. Also, per CheNuevara please be civil; plenty of people have problems with grammar and spelling, and such things aren't very germane to a discussion of whether an article violates Wikipedia policy. Captainktainer * Talk 23:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Additional sources found here, http://www.pugetsystems.com/reviews.php Hay Meadows 03:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The person requesting deletion has business unit in same industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HayMeadows (talk • contribs)
  • Comment How exactly is that a reason to keep? Are you implying that JzG wants this deleted to get rid of evidence of competitors? Metros232 00:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is also absolutely false. We buy computers, we don't sell them. Just zis Guy you know? 07:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. I'd like to see some more notable/reliable sources if possible. The ones that exist right now are questionable to me in terms of "non-trivial." Metros232 00:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Was neutral on this but then GRBerry's links below surfaced showing this is spam. Metros232 12:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. $2.5 million for a reseller is minor-leagues, and coverage in minor trade publications isn't non-trivial. --Calton | Talk 02:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, spam. ---Baba Louis 02:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:CORP The company's products have certainly been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." Reviewers in the custom computer space do not regurgitate press releases. I strongly considered buying a custom computer a few months ago, but eventually realized that I had more sense than money. Their target market is people who have more money than sense and lack the time/skills to build their own computer. Finding the best sources to cite will be a bear though, because while there are about 42,000 google hits on their name, there are only about 136 unique hits - so about 300 hits per ___domain... GRBerry 03:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In researching the next AFD, I became concerned that this is likely part of an SEO campaign. Although http://www.haymeadows.com/links/seo-link-exchange.htm does not list Puget Custom Computers as an SEO client the way that next company does, I'm going to withdraw my prior opinion and let everyone else see this and decide for themselves. GRBerry 03:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Good find. It does have Puget on its "Seattle Link Exchange" list http://www.haymeadows.com/links/seattle-link-exchange.htm. I'm not too sure if this means that they're a client or not, but it certainly makes it appear to be one. Metros232 03:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's there on the seo-link-exchange list too, under "Build your own computers." I'm undecided about the PCC article, but the editor should be banned. · rodii · 04:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: WP:SPAM & NN. Contrary to User:GRBerry and User:TruthbringerToronto, the http://www.silentpcreview.com/article248-page1.html reference (and another random choice, http://www.silentpcreview.com/article609-page1.html) appear authored by Devon Cooke, whose name links back to Puget; this doesn't seem a very independent source. SPCR is based in Vancouver, Puget in Seattle; forgive my ignorance on things Cascadian, but could the two organisations be related?--die Baumfabrik 04:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: SPCR and Puget are unrelated to the best of my knowledge. I am an avid reader of SPCR and poster to the SPCR forums. Also check [2] where Devon Cooke's name links to his email address at SPCR. I'm inclined to think that his name linking to Puget Systems is a bug in SPCR's backend. ~Chris ^{(squirrels!!)} 02:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes, more rummaging around reveals his biog, a student in Vancouver. Must be a bug after all. Nevertheless, the article is still WP:NN. --die Baumfabrik 04:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not just SEO spam, but ridiculously obvious SEO spam, as a comparison of the contributions of the article creator HayMeadows (talk · contribs) and this website would show. Besides, $2.5 million for a reseller is minor-leagues. --Calton | Talk 05:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are you, an expert on resellers? -CluePuppet 05:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Well established and sourced. And it fails WP:CORP ($2.5m is a very small computer maker - my business unit, one of several in the firm, spends about twice that on hardware annually). Your business unit sounds really special. I don't see any mention of dollar amounts in WP:CORP. -CluePuppet 05:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This user is indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of User:HayMeadows. Just zis Guy you know? 11:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thanks for the backing CluePuppet. Sockpuppet? I have no relationship with this user. Hay Meadows 14:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Why was that guy a sockpuppet? Because he disagreed with you? I think his point is still valid. Where is revenue listed as a qualification in WP:CORP? -Advocron 18:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Users only edits are in AfD's and several talk pages. Interesting indeed. --Ragib 22:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this is a reincarnation of MarkSteere (talk · contribs) -- whose only edits were to his self-authored vanity article and to relentlessly badgering anyone voting to delete/not undelete it. Which pretty much amounts to the same thing, but might as well be accurate about it. --Calton | Talk 05:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: as spam. --Ragib 22:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no question. --Pjacobi 22:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I removed some spammy text from the article. Please take a look at it now. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 08:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Being reviewed by people whose job it is to review any company like yours in a field doesn't qualify as obscurity, but by the same token I don't see it as establishing notability either. I'd feel better about this company if they'd been covered in the mainstream media. What seems to be the nature of the author's contributions does not help much either. Could be swayed with further evidence but from what I can see there's not much reason to keep this listing. GassyGuy 08:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I've looked at User:TruthbringerToronto's kindly efforts, but it's still an article about an NN company, and the links are still infotisements. --die Baumfabrik 11:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree. After looking at the updated article, I still feel it is non-notable as a company and the links used as references aren't independent, non-trivial links. Metros232 14:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per CSD:G3. I consider this to be SEO spam, vandalism. Stifle (talk) 13:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - SEO spam, NN, fails WP:CORP --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 18:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.