Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aplus.Net (3rd nomination)
- 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. Kurykh 20:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- Aplus.Net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Recreation of deleted article (4 times!), COI creation, not notable, just another web hoster, not linked into rest of wiki, nothing remotely encyclopedic about this company, wikipedia is not a list of companies, been successfully AFDd twice before, is advertising for company only, recreated by bad-faith abuse of wikipedia and its policies by multiple sockpuppets multiple times. Extremely unlikely to improve. Given the abuse, recommend delete and salt. - (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 18:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt. I did some source checking. The "CNET Editor’s Choice Award in April, 2003"? Not mentioned on the page in question. (Of course, neither was the "unsatisfactory" BBB rating alleged in the controversies section.) If verifiability is crumbling, then so also goes their claim to notability. It may be a fine company, but it isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia entry. Strike three for this article. —C.Fred (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can vouch for them both previously having been there, although the judging criteria was rather murky and the CNET page involved seemed to have been sponsored by... Aplus.net... (hence not independent). The BBB rating was presumably raised because they managed to close the 91 open cases. None of which makes the company notable so far as I can tell.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's the editor's choice award page. Gr1st (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Trouble is, as we noticed in the first review[1], CNET were then being 'sponsored' by aplus.net back then, so we've no reason to think that this is an independent review.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 18:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Either a source is reliable or it isn't: CNET seems to be regarded as the former on Wikipedia. Since they place great stock in the impartiality of their reviews ("our editors are never directed or influenced by... advertisers"), I don't see why they shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt here. Gr1st (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's either reliable or it isn't, then in this case, it isn't then. You can't use a source on CNET to reference itself to build its credibility. And the wiki policy says that a source on any particular subject has to be independent; but aplus.net were paying them sponsorship money when they got the award, and they're not independent on this matter.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 20:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Having read the first two AfD debates, I can only assume the sponsorship you refer to is on this page. The first AfD took place in late 2006. The editor's choice award review I linked to above was written in April 2003. Is there anything to suggest that aplus.net were paying them sponsorship money at this time? Gr1st (talk) 22:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well at the very least I found aplus.net ads plastered all over the cnet site. How is them winning an award to somebody they advertise with encyclopedic? If I read this article, what have I learned that I couldn't learn from a business directory? Where's the true encyclopedic notability in this article or company Grlst???- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 23:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Again - CNET are a credible media outlet, not a bunch of cowboys. This article certainly does not read like an advert. There is no evidence to suggest that this, when written in 2003, was not 100% independent. (Should The New York Times be disqualified as a reliable source on every organisation or corporation that has ever advertised in its pages?) Therefore it seems to me that Aplus.Net has received has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject (here, here and here). And since the article isn't, on the whole, used purely for promotional purposes, nor is it a copyright violation, that's all we need. It's a keep from me. Gr1st (talk) 11:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see that it's significant coverage. And it's of questionable independence (CNET are a company trying to make money, and Aplus.Net are an advertiser... with the best will in the world, what would you do?)- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 13:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Besides, look, it's a web hoster right? What would happen if we tried to merge it with web host. Seriously what would happen?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 13:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I claim that the material would get instantly deleted for lack of notability, and would not even be mentioned.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 13:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it that this article exists on its own, but would be deleted if merged? What has this company done to make itself truly encyclopedic??? Nothing. They won a prize. That's nice, no really. But it's not like they get a trophy, there's no award ceremony. The company that awarded it is just another company that gets advertising from them. They get to stick an icon up on a web page.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 13:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems to me that the question is how notable do you need to be to be in the wikipedia? If you set the bar very low then practically everyone in the world gets an article, the question is what is the right level?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 13:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's look at notability within the wikipedia. NOTHING links to Aplus.Net, and I claim that that's because they are not encyclopedic notable. None of the other wikipedia pages say that they are notable, and I don't see that they should do.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 13:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If they're not notable enough to be linked from the main page for what they do or any other pages, then they're certainly not notable enough to be in the wikipedia. Delete and salt this has gone on long enough.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 13:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Two final points from me on this:
- Your questioning of the independence of this article is spurious. We don't even know if Aplus advertised at all on CNET.com as far back as 2003.
- WP:N is our guide here. The article in question contains references from multiple, reliable third party sources (CNET, The San Diego Union-Tribune, the Bizjournals network). Let consensus decide whether that is sufficient. Gr1st (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Again - CNET are a credible media outlet, not a bunch of cowboys. This article certainly does not read like an advert. There is no evidence to suggest that this, when written in 2003, was not 100% independent. (Should The New York Times be disqualified as a reliable source on every organisation or corporation that has ever advertised in its pages?) Therefore it seems to me that Aplus.Net has received has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject (here, here and here). And since the article isn't, on the whole, used purely for promotional purposes, nor is it a copyright violation, that's all we need. It's a keep from me. Gr1st (talk) 11:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well at the very least I found aplus.net ads plastered all over the cnet site. How is them winning an award to somebody they advertise with encyclopedic? If I read this article, what have I learned that I couldn't learn from a business directory? Where's the true encyclopedic notability in this article or company Grlst???- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 23:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Having read the first two AfD debates, I can only assume the sponsorship you refer to is on this page. The first AfD took place in late 2006. The editor's choice award review I linked to above was written in April 2003. Is there anything to suggest that aplus.net were paying them sponsorship money at this time? Gr1st (talk) 22:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's either reliable or it isn't, then in this case, it isn't then. You can't use a source on CNET to reference itself to build its credibility. And the wiki policy says that a source on any particular subject has to be independent; but aplus.net were paying them sponsorship money when they got the award, and they're not independent on this matter.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 20:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Either a source is reliable or it isn't: CNET seems to be regarded as the former on Wikipedia. Since they place great stock in the impartiality of their reviews ("our editors are never directed or influenced by... advertisers"), I don't see why they shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt here. Gr1st (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Trouble is, as we noticed in the first review[1], CNET were then being 'sponsored' by aplus.net back then, so we've no reason to think that this is an independent review.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 18:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's the editor's choice award page. Gr1st (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: there were allegations of sockpuppetry in last AFD. Were these ever taken to checkuser? 69.140.152.55 (talk) 04:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There didn't seem to be much point to do that. We could still run it if you wish. FWIW the list of probable or likely socks relating to this and the twin article Gabriel Murphy are: User:Wiki-enforcer, User:troyc, User:70.13.22.85 User:74.5.120.11 is suspicious, User:LakeBoater, User:69.76.132.152. There may well be more.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 14:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Winning a non-notable award wouldn't make them notable, even if there wasn't a COI.Yobmod (talk) 14:57, 30 June 2008 (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.