Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epik (domain registrar)

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. Early WP:SNOW close, based on voluminous keep and speedy keep votes, and no opposition. Consensus is that it easily passes WP:GNG, and concerns were raised that the nominator is an SPA who should not have been tinkering around in this area. (non-admin closure) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Epik (domain registrar)

[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)

In accordance with [Articles of Deletion Policy (Reasons of Deletion)]: this AFD page cites #3 reason of deletion for ( pages that exist only to disparage their subject ). And AFD page # 8 reason of deletion for ( Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline ). In accordance with ( Wikipedia:CORP )" coverage of purely local events, incidents, controversies (see also #Audience below), ". The articles presented with WIRED and HUFFPO have described only the controversies of the corporation involved. This is directly noted against ( Wikipedia:CORP ) guidelines for controversies making a corporation or organization notable only by their controversial status. This article fails to be notable enough to warrant a position in the encyclopedia of companies involved or listed. In accordance with the following articles above -- I reccomend this article to be listed under Articles of Deletion and to be deleted with respect to the references above. Thank you. NameShiba (talk) 00:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. (Noting for full transparency that I created this article, and have continued to be involved in editing this article.) For those who are not aware of the history at Talk:Epik (domain registrar), this article has been the focus of an off-wiki campaign by Epik to have their article whitewashed. It appears that now that whitewashing the article has been unsuccessful (see the talk page, where the suggested changes have been pretty unanimously rejected), Epik supporters are trying to have it erased (as well as the article about the company's CEO, which has also just been nominated for deletion by this same user: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Monster (2nd nomination)). Epik is easily notable, though for different reasons than most companies—they probably would not be notable if it was not for the significant coverage the company received in 2018–2019 when they decided to provide services to controversial websites like Gab (social network) and 8chan. This notability is easy to verify with just a quick glance at Epik (domain registrar)#References, which includes detailed coverage in Wired, The Associated Press, Vice, and other quality publications. The arguments provided by the nominator frankly don't hold water—the article is not "disparaging", it factually and neutrally reflects the reporting about Epik. The reporting about Epik has largely been critical, but criticism is not disparagement. I don't understand at all the nominator's claim that this article is covering local events—the only mention of a locale in the article is a brief mention that the company is based in Sammamish, WA. The rest of the events are not tied to any location (well, Gab and Epik are both US-based, but I believe 8chan is run out of the Philippines these days). GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. dibbydib (T ･ C) 01:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, does seem factually based, also (easily) passes WP:GNG. Also passes WP:CORP as article is not solely based on a controversy or local incident. OP's contributions also seem a little suspicious, I might add — from the account creation (17 April) to now, almost all of them seem to revolve around Epik? Call me a conspiracy theorist but I think something fishy's going on. dibbydib (T ･ C) 01:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fishy Glub Glub Right, I was originally a SPA who created an account because of a disagreement I had over the Epik registrar's Wikipedia account. After looking into the subject more and other subjects involving the company I had initiated a request for deletion. Cheers. NameShiba (talk) 01:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can not speak over any other accounts except my own. I still feel like the lack of source material online that is not enveloped by niche journalism makes the company and it's contributions at this time not notable for a Wikipedia article.NameShiba (talk) 01:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing things up dibbydib (T ･ C) 06:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (edit conflict) - I'm seeing a lot of substantial coverage in national media outlets. In addition, WP:AUD states evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. I think coverage in Vice, Associated Press, Seattle Times, among other publications, shows that this article clearly passes WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT, along with WP:AUD. -- LuK3 (Talk) 02:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The coverage in the article currently demonstrates a strong passage of WP:GNG. Hog Farm (talk) 03:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- plenty of WP:RS in the article to justify WP:GNG. As to the claim "page[s] that exist only to disparage their subject", it does appear that the article is almost entirely negative. However, that may be because all the coverage in WP:RS is negative--I have not checked. If it is claimed that the article is not neutral and does not accurately report what is in the WP:RS, the remedy is not to delete the article, but to put in the WP:RS that balances out the article--if it exists. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - WP:GNG is satisfied, with reliable sources provided. MiasmaEternal^TALK 05:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Refs clearly meet GNG, and Epik is the main subject with WP:SIGCOV in several national and international RS, some of which are WP:RS/P. WP:NCORP does not prohibit articles on controversial companies (the opposite in fact), but does guide against using trivial coverage from local controversies, which is definitely not the case here. Britishfinance (talk) 10:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that the OP has also put the Epik CEO, Rob Monster's BLP up for AfD as well. Britishfinance (talk) 10:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant coverage in Seattle Times, HuffPost, Wired, Vice, SPLC, New York Times, Associated Press, Ars Technica, The Verge. These sources are not "niche journalism" and this is not trivial, local coverage. It's unfortunate that there is an absence of positive significant coverage, but I've been unable to locate any. Schazjmd (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's easily enough coverage in reliable sources to satisfy notability requirements. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as obviously notable per the extensive coverage in independent reliable sources as explained above. I must once again ask the question that I asked on the article talk page: if it is right to provide services to websites that host far-right, Neo-Nazi, and other extremist content as well as those that sell illegal drugs and counterfeit medications then why do the nominator and this company think that this fact is disparaging and should be suppressed? Surely they should be proud of it? The article simply states the facts weighted by their occurrence in independent reliable sources, and doesn't make any value judgments about such activity. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there everyone, thank you for all your input comments and attention to the AFD page. Cheers. NameShiba (talk) 02:40, 22 April 2020 (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.