Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Host.net

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2008 June 24.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. The "keep" arguments are numerous but weak. As noted by the relisting admin (and in spite of his or her recommendation), they are mostly variants of WP:DEMOLISH, an essay of no particular authority, especially now that the article is ten days old and still reeks of advertising ("... its biggest growth has come from referrals from its large base of satisfied customers.").

In particular, the "keep" arguments mostly do not address the article's apparent failure to meet WP:CORP, a community-adopted guideline that states: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." The very few "keep" arguments that do address this issue are unpersuasive. The Google News search linked to by Shoessss includes no sources that cover this corporation in any depth and/or are intellectually independent from it; in fact most are press releases ("Business Wire", "PR Newswire") or their rehashes. The sources cited in the article itself are of a similar nature.

In application of WP:DGFA#Rough consensus, I find that community consensus, as determined in the light of the strength of the arguments put forth in this discussion, is to delete this article. It may only be recreated once it clearly meets the sourcing requirements of WP:CORP. Sandstein 20:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Host.net

Lack or external references or sources makes me wonder if this is really a notable company? Addionne (talk) 01:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it was created with its current content and a tag, and AFD'ed one minute later? I'd like to hear from the creator before deleting it. Google seems to provide a reasonably good set of possible RS'es, like this one. Jclemens (talk) 01:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens. The article is new and could use some expansion with more/better references. No reason to delete it ... at least not yet. Truthanado (talk) 01:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built and Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol#Patrolling new pages. Start at the bottom of the patrol list, which is currently backlogged to 14 May 2008, and work up. Debate 木 01:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the above. The article's still in construction; no reason to delete yet. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1 minute and 13 seconds to deletion? Keep based on apparent conflict of interest of nominator. Good grief. --Blechnic (talk) 06:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although I appreciate everyones attempt to save a new article this AFD will last 5 days and I see no way this article will reach WP:CORP requirements. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 15:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shereth 16:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment - I am relisting this discussion in spite of what looks like an overwhelming sentiment to keep above - every argument was that the article was brand new and should not yet be considered. The article has now had 5 days for basic improvement, I would urge subsequent comments to address the content of the article rather than the timing of the nomination. Shereth 16:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this is, when a new article is AFDed within minutes of being created the incentive for a new user to continue working on it is virtually zero. The entire bureaucratic process is intimidating and they're likely to conclude that further work is a waste of time, why bother, since the article is going to be deleted anyhow by people far more experienced with Wikipedia than they are. Debate 木 00:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – more than enough verifiable – creditable – 3rd party sources, as shown here [1] to establish Notability. I’ll add the references in a few minutes. As a side note, it would have probably taken less timer for the nominator to do a quick Google search – pick one – two – three or more references and add to the piece than to nominate for Afd. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - purely per WP:DEMOLISH... --Cameron (T|C) 17:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This nomination is a text book example of things 'new page patrollers' shouldn't do and yet still do all the time. Nick mallory (talk) 13:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per ShoesssS. As s/he's shown there are plenty of results related to the company, but the nom seems to have taken the easier way out and instead mark for cleanup/improvement put it immeadiately up for AfD Q ^{T C} 04:26, 23 June 2008 (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.