Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cdnetworks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 was keep. John254 00:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cdnetworks

Cdnetworks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Cdnetworks. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk)

  • Delete No other edits than by the editor, single use account. Almost qualifies as an Ad. Dustitalk to me 18:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC) see change of mind below
  • Keep, the company is listed on KOSDAQ and appears to be notable based on the Reuters article. It's supposedly the #3 content delivery network in the world. --Pixelface (talk) 19:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, it appears to be a market leader in whatever it does. This page resulted from an edit war with Grinsandfun (talk · contribs), who is now banned for 31 hours. So that is bad, he was promoting the company, adding his red wikilink on two pages, Streaming media‎ and Content delivery network‎. He even deleted another company's wikilink from one of those pages. Definitely a bad player. Went to 3 reversions and he was out. But just before that he did come up with a verifiable source that it's a notable company (Reuters). So unfortunately, I think it's a KEEP. I told him to create the page. He did a bad job at that, all advertising, so I fixed it with a minimal stub, single-sourced. I have no connection with any company in the field, no interest in the matter at all. Colfer2 (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - sourced, notable, and has at least a minimal amount of encyclopedic content, however messy. Wikidemo (talk) 21:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep for the reasons above, but should be moved to CDNetworks. — brighterorange (talk) 01:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree with that move idea. If you do, could someone make sure that the backlink on Image:CDNetworks Logo.gif gets updated before Betacommandbot barks at it? -- RoninBK T C 05:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep After seeing what happened above, I am changing to a weak keep. Even though the article may be poorly written, it has a chance. There is one source, so it now is sourced. Though written like an ad, that can be, and maybe already has been, fixed. Dustitalk to me 15:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I've given it my own once-over, article is now at least on-par with the other CDN articles. I agree that this article's birth was a bit dodgy, but the article is definitely notable. -- RoninBK T C 06:42, 15 March 2008 (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.