Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DNPric.es

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. Consensus is that the sourcing fails WP:NCORP. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DNPric.es[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PRODed but was refunded; No real independant sourcing - sources that aren't press releases or their own website only mention the website occasionally as a source of information - no depth of coverage for WP:NCORP, with sources cited for notability by the creator being only mentions with no depth; being "widely known" doesn't necessitate notability; that requires sources with a depth of coverage Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not finding any significant coverage for this website. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 21:53, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How about that it is quoted by Verisign, the company that runs .com, .net, .tv and several more TLDs. Here are the references to their presentations text and slides. They rely heavily on the data from DNPric.es in their pricing models. Landain ^(talk) 00:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dozens of references are referred in the news section; this is covered in English, Chinese, Czech, Polish, Russian, Spanish, Ukrainian, and Vietnamese languages. Top publishes like The Next Web and Media Temple, The Register, Habr had articles about the service and practically every top domain name related blog wrote about it (see the in the news section above). The service is referenced on Crunchbase et al. Google News indexed 163 publications. In addition to this there is one scholar reference. The database is the largest domain name price tracker in the world after all with hundreds of thousand of users in the DNS industry. Google search for "dnpric.es" returns over 11,500 unique independent pages related to this service. Landain ^(talk) 00:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to go through every source on the website, but they're all low quality/passing references. The Next Web is probably the best source listed on the website, and it's literally titled "short sweet tips". It's not about the subject iself, but instead about how to choose a good domain name. DNCPric.es is incidental in the article. Same for "10 tips before you buy a domain" and the register article, which all constitute passing mentions and therefore fail WP:SIGCOV. The Habr article is a blog post. Blog posts don't count as WP:RS. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 23:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both DNPric.es/Registra.rs represent the widely used services in the DNS industry. This is a niche industry and is not covered by New York Post every day. We need to adjust for this. The news in DNS are covered by all the mentioned sites (and dozens of references exists as provided), be it of low quality/passing references. Those sites are to DNS what The Economist et al are to finance. We need to compare apples to apples and DNS world to DNS species. Landain ^(talk) 09:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not how notability works. There needs to be indepth coverage so that a neutral article beyond a stub can be written on the website. The main issue is not that the websites aren't the New York Times but that they simply do not have much actual coverage of the website Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how do you relate to other entries, like Propertini? There are thousands of those here on Wikipedia we all contribute to. It has much lower news coverage by factor 10 at least. In that sense DNPric.es is of much higher notability. Landain ^(talk) 09:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Google news hits does not determine notability, but that company is indeed not notable. I've nominated it for deletion. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And crunchbase is essentially a directory listing. Dozens of mentions do not constitute passing WP:NCORP Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Initial content on DNPric.es is somewhat limited I agree. Wikipedia describes thousands of similar companies of similar size and influence in various sectors so there is no reason to exclude DNPric.es. I do agree with you that the article can be improved to suit Wikipedia better. Please share your suggestions and tips. Landain ^(talk) 11:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet WP:WEB/WP:CORP. The sources given above don't meet the significance test of WP:GNG, as they discuss the subject only in passing. To establish notability we need reliable independent sources which discuss the subject directly and in detail. The number of Google hits isn't relevant, but the search given above only returns about 130 unique hits instead of the 11,000 claimed. It may well be that there are other companies/sites with Wikipedia articles which don't meet these standards, but that isn't a reason for keeping this one. They can also be nominated for deletion. Hut 8.5 20:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DNPric.es to DNS globally is what Zoopla is to the real estate in the UK. There are some concerns about Zoopla too ("A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject."). Do we really have to delete it, even as DNPric.es exposure is somewhat smaller? There are no major magazines in DNS which Wikipedia tags as major sources. Yet, the quoted sources are highly ranked within ICANN and abouts. So that we understand, everyone is using DNPric.es data to price the domain names. E.g., MMX (Minds and Machines) a company behind .london et al rely on the data to price their premium items. I attend ICANN meetings, in person so know the insides. Hence sharing it with you here. Landain ^(talk) 10:32, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there really are no reliable sources which have covered the subject in detail then there isn't much we can do. Without those it isn't possible to write an acceptable article under our rules. Even if people are using the site or regard it highly then that isn't sufficient. We don't delete articles because a contributor had a conflict of interest, that doesn't have anything to do with the existence of sources. Hut 8.5 10:28, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you are coming from. However, as I provided some examples already above, e.g., Propertini, hundreds thousand of quality and related pages will then need to be removed from Wikipedia. It is up to the admins of how to interpret the guidelines. I would rather keep DNPric.es. See for example one of the top registrars Uniregistry, it uses the same sources, mainly blogs in the DNS industry in the references. However Uniregistry matches GoDaddy. DNPric.es matches Zillow. The only dfference, DNPric.es is in the DNS world, like Uniregistry, and Zillow is in, a better covered, real estate. Landain ^(talk) 20:05, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also found references by Verisign, please see above in the comment to FenixFeather. Landain ^(talk) 00:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about other companies or websites aren't relevant here. The subjects of those articles are not the same as the subject of this article. The sourcing about each will be different. Even if there aren't any suitable sources for those articles they can just be nominated for deletion, as has already happened with your first example. Your Verisign source is just a citation, which clearly does not cover the subject in detail. Hut 8.5 06:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about Uniregistry? It uses the same sources. Landain ^(talk) 20:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again other articles aren't relevant here. Notability is determined by the existence of suitable sources, not by the quality of the sources cited in the article. To decide whether the subject of that article is notable I'd have to Google it and spend a while reading what came up, as I did with this one. Hut 8.5 21:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So are now saying that Uniregistry and hundreds of other articles in DNS space should be deleted as well? Landain ^(talk) 08:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. I have no opinion on the notability of Uniregistry. I'd have to do some research to form an opinion, and I haven't. Again the notability of other articles is not relevant to the notability of this one. Hut 8.5 20:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft The article at present does not show notability; since it's asserted there are further references, the reasonable thing to do is to give them a chanceto be added. DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of sources, per WP:NCORP. If somebody can find good sources to meet WP:NCORP, I have no problem with them recreating the title, but none of the sources presented here meet that standard. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORP as a service organization; fails WP:GNG as a database. What is so difficult about the concept of substantive coverage in independent reliable sources? --Bejnar (talk) 03:58, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with above, fails WP:NCORP, lack of references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:31, 27 September 2018 (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.