Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Media Temple (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:02, 19 March 2009

Media Temple

advertising without relevant content. content not suitable for an encyclopedia. self-promotion and product placement. lacks substantial 3rd party objective evidence of notability from reliable sources Arrowhead (talk) 07:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mysteriously, two users seem to have nominated this article within a few hours of each other, causing all sorts of confusion. The other one, Sinope09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), used the following incredibly similar nomination text at WP:AFD/Media Temple (2nd nomination):

They advertise their product/service without relevant content. The content and subject is not suitable for an encyclopedia. The company's position is for self-promotion and product placement and the article lacks substantial 3rd party objective evidence of notability from reliable sources.

I've speedily closed the other AFD as redundant to this one. Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a mystery. The creator of the article tried to delete the first second nomination AFD. Arrowhead (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All of these issues appear to have been addressed in the previous AfD, which was closed as "keep". While the current sources are a little subpar, they're adequate, and I see no content in the article which seems particularly advertorial. Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Articles with sub-standard references should be improved, not deleted. Toytown Mafia (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is self advertising (which is not a goal of the Wikipedia)and there is not even one 3rd party references given. Nothing links to this article. Additionally Media Temple is a small not notable company (for an Encyclopedia like Wikipedia) which doesn't even have an ORCA entry (see ORCA.bpn.gov). Media Temple is not a pioneer of grid-hosting (see as reference: I. Foster, C. Kesselman, The Grid: Blueprint for a New Computing Infrastructure, 1999). Arrowhead (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - more secondary sources would be good, but the article does contain third party references, one of which does describe it as a pioneer of grid hosting. As I said last time we had this AfD, it's not exactly Microsoft but there is moderate independent coverage in industry media. Euryalus (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a place to advertise a small business. This is not appropriate.

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 * '''Delete'''. The article is self advertising (which is not a goal of the Wikipedia)and there is not even one 3rd party references given. Nothing links to this article. Additionally Media Temple is a small not notable company (for an Encyclopedia like Wikipedia) which doesn't even have an ORCA entry (see [https://orca.bpn.gov ORCA.bpn.gov]). Media Temple is not a pioneer of grid-hosting (see as reference: I. Foster, C. Kesselman, The Grid: Blueprint for a New Computing Infrastructure, 1999). [[User:Ucla2009|Arrowhead]] ([[User talk:Ucla2009|talk]]) 18:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' - more secondary sources would be good, but the article ''does'' contain third party references, one of which ''does'' describe it as a pioneer of grid hosting. As I said last time we had this AfD, it's not exactly Microsoft but there is moderate independent coverage in industry media. [[User:Euryalus|Euryalus]] ([[User talk:Euryalus|talk]]) 19:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
+* '''Delete'''  Wikipedia is not a place to advertise a small business. This is not appropriate.