Talk:Heritage Internet Technologies

All portions of the article are fully cited. Additional sections were added to promote neutrality, as negative aspects of the business continue to be removed by HWS, despite the fact that they are sourced and fully legitimate. The comments are not accusations, but the general reputation and client opinion, as cited by the provided websites and several others. The tone and reactions on the Wiki page indicate that HWS is attempting to protect itself from negative PR, and as a result are intentionally violating the guidelines for neutrality that Wikipedia provides.(72.8.71.59 (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC))

Of the cites provided; the BBB one states that the company has a "satisfactory" rating. It is not notable or unusual that some customers complain. The other two are effectively forum posts, otherwise known as "self published". These are not acceptable cites and not suitable for supporting criticisms. See Wikipedia policy on unacceptable sources.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This article seems to be an advertising blurb for the company--just a list of statistics about how great the company is. Its revenue is low ($8.2 m), and there seems to have been no substantive editing (other than company reps adding positive information and angry customers adding negative information). I propose that for now, we change the text of the article to: "Heritage Web Solutions is a web design and web hosting company located in Provo, Utah and founded in 2001. Inc.com's Inc. 5000 ranked Heritage Web Solutions in its 2007 list of fastest growing companies. [1]" If I hear no better suggestions within the next day or two for how to make this article more NPOV (IE how to make it more balanced and sound less like an advert for the company), I will change the text as I have suggested. MoKo365 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC).

Since there were no objections to my above proposed text, I went ahead and changed the text to what I proposed. If there are no objections over the next few days, I am going to add a "propose for deletion" tag to this article. This article was proposed for deletion a year ago, and in that time, the only things that have been added are what look like complaints from disgruntled customers and advertising promotional information added by company employees. When you take out all the NPOV parts of the article (as I have done), there is basically no content left. No one seems to care enough about this company (which is a very small company as far as web design and web hosting companies go) to post any real encyclopedic content about it. If after a year, no one can come up with anything notable to say about the company, there is no reason to keep the article here on Wikipedia. MoKo365 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC).

You really didn't give anyone a chance to respond to your comments, given that you posted them late on a Friday, and wanted people to look things over on a weekend. It seems the only thing you want is to delete the article (based on your opinions expressed above). If you read the AfD discussion, the information about the article was all from reliable sources such as Entrepreneur Magazine and Inc. itself. Any article about a company is going to be somewhat promotional, but the information presented here are simply the facts. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)