Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C I Host

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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

C I Host[edit]

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

This article, initially speedily deleted (restored by me under the assertion it contained salvageable material, which I'm willing to open up to the broader public, and that it was not purely an attack page), seems to have initially been set up as a borderline attack page. With the weasel-words and footnoteless "controversy" pieces removed, we're still left with two sources that are even conceivably reliable news entities, the rest being from forums. With the page shifted to a (somewhat) more neutral position and the uncited information cut, I am not convinced the skeleton that remains demonstrates notability. - Vianello (Talk) 06:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the topic is notable enough, owing to the marketing tactics, which have received coverage from independent sources. It's not an attack page. - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. No, it is indeed no longer an attack article. An exclusively negative article riddled with weasel words is, but I think it's evolved a bit past that now. The attack issue is not the thrust of the deletion argument; the presence of only two halfway reliable sources that do not conclusively demonstrate notability (in my subjective opinion) is. - Vianello (Talk) 20:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As far as I can tell there is no company by the name CI Host anymore. It appears some of their assets were likely bought by "Cassiopeia Internet, Inc.". This company does not appear to be notable, even though tattoo adverting is somewhat unorthodox, they were not the first company to use this form of advertising (per the Human_billboard#Tattoos article). Also, much of the article still appears to be unsourced. 71.123.160.4 (talk) 05:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a medium sized web hosting company. Leaving aside the allegations in former versions about questionable business practices, and the tattoo advertising business, neither of which are going to make this business a subject to remember in future centuries, this is an entirely run of the mill online business without historical, technical, or cultural significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:02, 13 August 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.