Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Netfirms

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 Delete. Keilana_(recall) 21:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Netfirms

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

Non-notable web hosting company. No secondary sources provided other than being ICANN accredited. Fails WP:V and WP:CORP. BJ^Talk 00:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. That the sources are not provided by the editor is not grounds for deletion if those sources do exist. It's when the sources cannot be found that we delete an article. By Googling "Netfirms Web Hosting", I found this sponsored link (yet independent of Netfirms). --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 04:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: How does the source you provided show notability? 1000's of web hosts are listed and reviewed on the internet. How is this host notable? BJ^Talk 06:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply Marked 9th most valuable, by an independent evaluator that took the time it takes to evaluate it. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 17:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No links that show actual notability. They prove that the company EXISTS, but that isn't enough to pass the sniff test. Pharmboy (talk) 21:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per Pharmboy. I'm skeptical on its notability. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 04:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - significant media coverage Addhoc (talk) 13:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The link provided by Addhoc, and the subsequnt citation to Forbes in the article, is a good assertion of notability. Pastordavid (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - All the sources shown by Addhoc, including the Forbes "article" are just press releases and therefore do not demonstrate notability. The NYTimes reference is just a trivial mention. —dgies^t_c 20:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I've replaced the Forbes citation - I didn't notice this was a press release. Addhoc (talk) 21:11, 29 December 2007 (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.