Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 April 18

DigitalOcean – List on AfD. The conversation here is not easy to follow. As far as I can tell, this really boils down to the article was speedy deleted, and has since been rewritten in a way which (it is claimed) no longer meets speedy criteria. Most of the rest of this is arguing about notability, which is an argument best carried out on AfD, so I'm going to list this there. – -- RoySmith (talk) 14:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This page has been created multiple times, almost certainly be people looking for neutral information about this company. I came to Wikipedia looking for unbiased information on DigitalOcean, a fairly significant service in my version of the world, and found that the article has been deleted twice. As an wikipedia editor of 8 years, contributor of both articles and images, and having edited hundreds of scientific journal articles, I endeavored to write with NPOV, wikified my text, and cited sources. Perhaps User:Deb and other deletionist-minded editors are unaware, but this company is on par with Amazon as an entrepreneurial resource. It is not advertising to cite market-based research. I specifically cited market-based criteria, like Netcraft, because the company is focused on entrepreneurial markets. I note it is entirely comparable to other services, like Bluehost and Amazon AWS. Please undelete the article. Niels Olson (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now being canvassed off-wiki.[1] The company is probably notable, but "on par with Amazon" doesn't sound very neutral (it's a startup company not much different than a zillion small VPS hosts).

70.36.142.114 (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That claim was not made in the text of the article and, in the narrow space of hosts a early stage entrepreneur or hobbyist would consider, it's absolutely on par.Niels Olson (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given the above, coupled with their recent large Series A round from Andreessen Horowitz, and examples of high profile use of their services given on TechCrunch: [2] (e.g., the host for beyonce.com), the notability of DigitalOcean and suitability for inclusion here is significant. I vote for a speedy undeletion. Daniel Smith (talk) 18:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that the article was deleted for promotional wording, not for lack of notability. Deb (talk) 07:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a series A round makes a company notable. An IPO might make it notable, but I'm not sure even of that. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 20:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn 01:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC) "no explanation of significance" speedy deletion by Bbb23 based on http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DigitalOcean.
At the time of the 01:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC) deletion, if not substantially changed from the version in the Google cache, the article was neutrally written and contained two reliable sources: http://www.forbes.com/sites/danreich/2012/09/19/startup-ceo-ben-uretsky-on-launching-digital-ocean-raising-money-and-joining-techstars/ and http://techcrunch.com/2013/01/15/techstars-graduate-digitalocean-switches-to-ssd-for-its-5-per-month-vps-to-take-on-linode-and-rackspace/
The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline based on this article in TechCrunch ("DigitalOcean Raises $37.2M From Andreessen Horowitz To Take On AWS"), this article in VentureBeat ("DigitalOcean's cloud surpasses Amazon Web Services in one category"), and this article in The New York Times ("Andreessen Horowitz Backs DigitalOcean, a Cloud Computing Start-Up").
I cannot see the 17:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC) "unambiguous advertising or promotion" speedy deletion by Deb, so will not express an opinion about that deletion. Cunard (talk) 09:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Not much point trying to overturn a deletion that happened before the one that's being challenged. You can see the article I deleted here.Deb (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sounds wrong to me, if there is a viable article to be had then what's the problem? For sure your deletion may have been ok, but since you aren't "banning" the topic from existing, if a previous version is valid there is no reason not to turn back to that one. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's as maybe, but that's not what User:Niels_Olson has requested. Deb (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're familiar with WP:NOTBURO? I don't like the ad hominem in the nomination here, but at the end we should be concerned about building the encyclopedia. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 08:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        You're imagining the "ad hominem" - don't forget to assume good faith. I'm pointing out the facts, which are being consistently clouded by misleading comments from those who apparently still think that the version User:Niels_Olson wants undeleted was deleted for non-notability. If you would like to nominate the previous version for undeletion, go ahead. Deb (talk) 08:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        So you do want to put a bureaucratic process first, we are here discussing this article. If there is a viable one which can help improve the encyclopedia there is no issue with discussing that here, despite your desire to make sure form xxxb6 has been filled in properly by raising a new nomination for a different deletion i.e. making someone jump through bureaucratic hoops. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact - the use of "deletionist-minded editors" in the nom is clearly being used as a pejorative. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 08:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Do you or don't you care enough to make a valid nomination, then? Deb (talk) 09:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        It's already a valid nomination, so no need to open another (your assertion otherwise is not "law"). I'll take my chances that the closing admin will be more clued up on the idea of what is and isn't bureaucratic that you seem to be demonstrating. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 10:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- So what's the quickest path forward to having a DigitalOcean entry then? Seems like notability has been established, now there's just an argument around language. "If a subject is notable and the content can be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion." Should User:Niels_Olson simply resubmit the entry using more neutral descriptors? Chorder (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's the obvious solution - he's had it in his sandbox all along so I don't know why he is so reluctant to do it. Deb (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - No reluctance here, merely a combination of trying to defer to process, and having other things to do in meatspace. I don't have access to the wikitext of the 11 April 2014 vesion cited above in the googlecache link (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DigitalOcean). If someone with access to the deletion log would drop that wikitext in my sandbox or elsewhere and point me to it, I would be happy to merge the two with a focus on ensuring NPOV. As for an ad hominem attack, please consider "deletionist-minded editors" in the same context as an American Congressperson might refer to "my friends on the other side of the aisle". Also, just to clarify, I'm not even a DigitalOcean customer. I'm a prospective customer looking at available options. I have no interest in this company other than its value to me. Niels Olson (talk) 03:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I resubmitted the rewritten article, citing consensus in this conversation. Niels Olson (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we could close this now as a new version of the article has been created. I'm not at all concerned about being lumped with "deletionist-minded editors"; I believe it's important to avoid our servers getting gunged up with iterations of spam and other inappropriate articles - it saves long-term hassle if we nip it in the bud. Deb (talk) 10:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Glad to hear
  I'm not at all concerned about being lumped with "deletionist-minded editors"
  . It has been my impression that folks on both sides wear their labels with pride. Perhaps I should spend more time trolling for spam to delete, but I don't even know where to look for it, and most of my work is in the sciences, where NPOV is usually a moot issue and we cite anything we can if for no other reason that to keep track of all the literature. Niels Olson (talk) 16:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Niels, I saw you wrote on Talk:DigitalOcean, ...has been resubmitted with a focus on NPOV to conform with the consensus reached in the deletion review. Given that this debate is still going on, it's really too early to declare that consensus has been reached. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- In creating this new version was stuff copied from the cached version? If so then the advice to close this is as broken as the advice about making this bureaucratic. We now don't have proper attribution for the earlier copied material, so there will still need to have the earlier revisions restored to maintain that. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 08:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.