Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ServerBeach

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 no consensus. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ServerBeach[edit]

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

Contested proposed deletion. This is a non-notable business that provides web hosting. The one event upon which this business rests its claim to fame is that it used to host YouTube's servers. When YouTube took its business to Google, they posted a video response that got some media play. This flurry of coverage is not enough to sustain a claim of notability for this otherwise behind the scenes business, and I find only press releases and routine announcements otherwise. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.
Keep. There's non-trivial press coverage about the company outside that event from a half-a-dozen different sources [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10], mentioned alone on CNN [11]; also mentioned together with Rackspace [12] on O'Reilly. Satisfies WP:GNG and it's more notable than the average hosting company too. Pcap ping 17:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had seen at least some of those when I went looking. Even if we assume that a "Data Center Knowledge", "Hardware Today", or "Web Hosting Industry News" websites all are reliable sources, I don't think that announcements like "ServerBeach Goes Offline After Outage" or "ServerBeach Moves Into Larger Data Center" constitute the significant coverage needed. That's why I said I found "press releases and routine announcements". They seem to be reporting rather routine events. The O'Reilly story simply mentions this as an available vendor with the facilities to set up the sort of teleconference system that is its chief subject. The CNN mentions them the same way. The only real exposure I found for this is the YouTube story. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Multiple sources that are all incidental or trivial. Could be merged/re-directed to Peer1, the article says they were bought out by them. Miami33139 (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain how this, this, this or this are trivial or incidental. None of these articles are about outages, by the way. (The serverwatch.com article says that ServerBeach was a top 15 US hosting company, so it shouldn't be surprising that their outages were newsworthy.) Pcap ping 14:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - San Antonio local business reporting on employee expansion - any local business can get the local paper to print stuff like this. The others seem like filler material in niche reporting. There is a claim here, that this was a top 15 US hosting company (does that mean the top 15 in every country are notable?). However, I don't see how that stuff doesn't belong in a historical section of a different article - about the company that bought them out. This does not need to be standalone material. Miami33139 (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Beside the technical publications and local newspapers it was also covered in 5 paragraphs in this CNNMoney story, who misspelled it as "Server Beach", so I didn't find it before. Pcap ping 10:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 14:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete - per WP:ORG none of the above references are significant enough for WP's notability standards. It needs coverage such as CNNs but on the company, not just mentioning it, while local and specialist coverage should also be disregarded. As it is there's nothing to establish notability.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "just mentioning it" is in the eye of the beholder. The company's entire independent history from inception to acquisition by PEER1 was described in those 5 paragraphs in CNN Money I linked above. If your standard for inclusion is a separate CNN article, then that does not exist indeed, but why not merge it to the parent company then, if CNN is the standard by which we structure our articles? Pcap ping 06:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The multipls sources provided by User:Pohta ce-am pohtit indicate notability.--Pink Bull 01:42, 27 January 2010 (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.