Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bravenet Web Services

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 No Consensus, Keep --lightdarkness ^(talk) 14:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bravenet Web Services, DreamHost, EuroVPS & NexGen Internet Services

All non-notable and don't include why they merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a junkyard. Delete Ardenn 15:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep No Google News hits about these companies, they do not appear to satisfy WP:WEB. But, most articles in categories Internet service providers, Internet hosting and Web hosting will fail to satisfy WP:WEB for the same reason. I'm concerned it would be unfair to leave some while deleting others. If these categories are cleaned out leaving only companies that satisfy WP:WEB or WP:CORP I would change my vote to delete all of the above. Accurizer 15:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with you, that's why I've put most of them on afd. Just them existing isn't a reason to vote to keep. Ardenn 15:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • That's why I voted weak keep instead of keep :) I agree with your goal, I just have concerns about deleting some and not all at the same time. Regards, Accurizer 16:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I find the argument "but other articles that fail to satisfy WP:WEB still exist!" unpersuasive. If there are indeed such articles, Prods and AfDs should be filed. RGTraynor 15:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete {most-see note below} per nom, all of these read like advertising to me. There is nothing critical of the companies included, and probably all of the info. can be found on their own web sites and press releases. It would appear that this nomination is an effort to start clean-up of this type of page. -MrFizyx 16:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep DreamHost, Delete others: I realize that I'm splitting hairs here. I'm now convinced that the size and popularity of DreamHosts have given it border-line notability. Also, I'm recognizing efforts by *Dan T.* and others to provide some NPOV. I'm not yet persuaded that Bravenet Web Services is ever going to be more than an ad. -MrFizyx 19:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep; I'm not sure about the others, but Dreamhost is a pretty big hosting operation, with over 200,000 domains hosted. We don't necessarily have to list every mom-and-pop hosting outfit, but one this big probably deserves inclusion. *Dan T.* 16:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • You can vote to keep one without voting to keep all of them. Ardenn 16:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • You are right about Dreamhosts size, they seem to be the largest on this list. The number I found was 253,859 domains. However, this is only 0.38% of the market and places them as 28th in the world (see [1]). Where would you suggest the line be drawn? -MrFizyx 17:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • They are currently 17th in the U.S. rankings. It is not just size that makes DreamHost a worthy candidate for an article, but it is certainly a significant reason. -- Scjessey 12:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and per RGTraynor. -- Kicking222 16:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all but not because they fail WP:WEB, they fail WP:CORP. Bravenet and DreamHost are decently well known as cheap webhosting, but that doesn't mean they meet our guidelines. Kotepho 18:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Maybe it's our guidelines that are flawed, if they demand the deletion of a "decently well known" entity. *Dan T.* 22:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I just looked for WP:RS on DreamHost. Nadda. Surprising number of newspaper mentions, but they were all from someone's URL. Reviews on some webhosting review sites, but those aren't exactly a good reference. I don't have access to a good archive of magazines though. I could see them being reviewed by one. Kotepho 23:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom  Funky Monkey  (talk)  01:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep of the DreamHost article. The company is extremely well-known in the web community, with a unique public face, an active user community, a useful community-driven knowledge base, and even the makings of a fan base. It's significant size (>200,000 customers) makes it a peculiar candidate for deletion anyway. -- Scjessey 12:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep of the DreamHost article. Such a large company in the interested hosting world should have an informaiton space in the wikipedia. Matttail 19:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Bravenet is the largest free web host in the world. Source: The Yahoo! Directory [2]. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Bravenet & Dreamhost, weak delete others -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 18:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep I only know about DreamHost, who seem to have lots of exposure and lots of contented customers. Having a Wikipedia page to act as a collector of unbiased information about hosting companies is a useful thing for Wikipedia to do. What in fact is the problem with every hosting company in the world having a page at Wikipedia? Why is a hosting company inferior to an obscure, defunct car company or a specific type of old steam locomotive as regards being a candidate for deletion? (Personally I think Wikipedia could have a glorious role ahead of it as the world's default "vocabulary of translatable identifiers", quite apart from any content that Wikipedia publishes about those identifiers.) Hotlorp 15:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC).
  • Wikipedia may not be paper, but it certainly does not have the resources to have info on every webhost in the world. There are simply too many of them, and they are not notable. Wikipedia is not an inidscriminate collection of information. Ardenn 03:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Bravenet has an Alexa rank of 452 (details). Not sure about the others. Probably should not have been listed as a group. StuffOfInterest 19:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP is not a repository for advertisements and external links. Bravenet may be notable, but not the others. Admrb♉ltz (t • c • b • p • d • m) 03:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Bravenet. When your site is one of the 500 most visited on the internet for a period of years, you are notable. WP:WEB is helpful but is not all-inclusive, and Bravenet meets at least one of its guidelines. WP:Notability says "A topic has notability if it is known outside of a narrow interest group or constituency, or should be because of its particular importance or impact." Bravenet qualifies, as it has been around since 1997, and its software and services underpin many if not most web rings, counters, forums, and guestbooks in the English-speaking web. Furthermore, unlike most webhosts, Bravenet appears in Google News [3], as part of the Duke lacrosse players investigation as well as a portal article on creating a website. Not to mention the 14,000,000+ Google results. The lack of mention of something on Google does not indicate lack of notability, nor does a modest presence on Google... but an overwhelming presence on Google is a sign that it's notable. If anything, the article needs to be expanded to reflect Bravenet's importance to the web. By the way, in the future, please split your AfDs. These are wildly different companies with wildly different notabilities.Captainktainer 07:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Bravenet. delete others. Mukadderat 18:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep DreamHost because I've heard of it—not because my experiences are authoritative, but because it seems to be known by a fair number of people, judging by this unscientific "survey". Abstain on others. Ardric47 00:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep > Cleanup Obvious. Needs a cleanup to more NPOV. How do you do a strikethru? This comment was edited by me. Startup account 20:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • This user has no contributions and has only added to AFD. [4]. Ardenn 20:47, 26 April 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.