Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of free shell providers

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. Cúchullain ^t/c 06:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of free shell providers

WP:NOT a web directory; this information could just as easily be on the Open Directory Project. It doesn't seem very encylcopedic, with the transient nature of most free shell providers. —Crazytales (public computer) ^{(talk) (main)} 12:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Web directory article, doesn't belong in an encyclopedia Lurker 12:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
begrudging delete per nom, despite personal LIKEIT...can't see how to make this type of thing encyclopediac. DMOZ has a Unix Shell Providers section, granted not as well annotated (specific features seem to have their own sections, e.g., IRC Shell Providers). DMacks 16:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually found that page extremely useful. I did not even know that such entities even EXIST. Therefore, the argument that they can easily be found on other places does not hold - you first have to KNOW that something exists, and only afterwards can you search for it. ;) (Sorry if I did not reply as I should, but I found no other way than to "edit" this.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.65.73.2 (talk)

Delete per Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. Also, this list is massively incomplete. Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list at DMOZ is not maintaned at all, most of the providers in that list doesn't even exist anymore I think. This list on the other hand is very up to date and clean. But if it's not suitable for Wikipedia, I guess it'll have to move someplace else. But I have no doubt about it beeing very valuable to people looking for free shells. Independence 12:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stays This article is the only up-to-date list of free shell providers where also others can contribute on the Internet. The other lists are badly updated and maintained by individuals and contain a list of many shell providers which are allready dead. The list on DMOZ where others could contribute is blocked for access. There are other comparisons available on wikipedia, so I see no reason why this one would have to be removed. It is a great help for people that are looking for a free Unix shell access. Prunk 12:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think better choice that merge to Shell_provider instead of deletion. Araki 15:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stays Deletion is bad idea. It's better when there is everything in one place... But if you treat it like Yellow Pages it can be simply splited to articles about every free shell provider but i my opinion it is pointless. The other thing that is better than deleting is Araki's suggestion. Zawor 12:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NOT#DIR & WP:N. —^Jack_Lumber^/tɔk/ 21:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stays The article presented here is the only half decent location to find a free shell provider. I have yet to see any other page, weather it be on DMOZ or found on Google that is able to give such a detailed and well maintained list such as this one. --TimGws 12:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article presented here is the only half decent location to find a free shell provider We don't decide on whether an article stays by examining the shortcomings of other websites. Lurker 13:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nor do we decide on whether to keep an article based on how it might be useful. Zetawoof_(ζ) 16:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slight keep. I only say this because I'm not entirely convinced that deleting it would serve any benefit to the encyclopedia. --Android Mouse 04:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; deletion is not needed. A list of notable shell providers is appropriate. This article could be trimmed, or merged with Shell provider, or split into articles about each notable shell provider. John Vandenberg 05:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the free shell providers listed here appear to be notable besides Super Dimension Fortress (and even that one is kind of borderline). Zetawoof_(ζ) 06:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Arbornet is the one I thought could become an article; Rootshell may also have enough history to be notable but a quick search doesnt confirm that. As I said initially, I would be happy with a merge (provided the history is retained). John Vandenberg 02:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basically a web directory article, and those are covered by WP:NOT. I don't know much about UNIX and it's tough to determine whether the entries are notable or not, but considering the system specs (all but one being less powerful than the ordinary PC I'm using to type this) I'd say likely not. I hope this can be transwikied somewhere, as I'm sure it's potentially useful, but Wikipedia is not the place. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's actually a good point - with a few notable exceptions (SDF, Arbornet, and HP Test Drive), most of these "shell providers" are running on what sounds like consumer hardware and DSL connections. These aren't "shell providers"; they're -- I don't know what to call them exactly, but they are, among other things, unlikely to stay in operation any longer than it takes them to get their first abuse report from their ISP or law enforcement. Note, for example, that this list contains no less than three providers that opened this month, or just look at the history: there's a huge amount of "churn". Zetawoof_(ζ) 02:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I appreciate what you are saying about this list possibly including shell providers that are fly by nighters, but I would like to make a point that many historically important free shell providers were running on equipment that we would scoff at these days; in fact many were running on outdated systems at the time, because the machines had been retired from their intended role. Regarding the churn, all lists need to be maintained to prevent spam. This list could do with a tighter inclusion criteria to make it easier to prevent spamming, but that doesnt mean that the list isnt of valuable. At the same time, I think the list should also include free shell providers (of note) that have shut down, probably in a separate section/table. The period when free shell providers where an important part of the Internet culture is long gone, and most have closed up shop or gone commercial, so the most notable entries on this list are currently excluded. John Vandenberg 02:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT, as well as being a non-notable list containing (mostly) non-notable companies. I doubt a professional shell company would offer a shell server using Ubuntu with 160MB of ram on a home speed connection. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 05:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Or the one running on a 233 MHz Pentium MMX with 160 MB RAM and a 10 GB hard disk. Seriously, I understand that some of these places are running on limited funds, but that's just ridiculous - I've pulled better machines than that out of dumpsters! Zetawoof_(ζ) 06:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Shell_provider. Very torn on this one. I can definitely see great usefulness potential in this list, but WP is not a directory and usefulness does not mean encyclopedic. Merge would be best option that satisfies both sides. Tendancer 18:28, 21 June 2007 (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.