Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Highwinds Network Group

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 Keep. Fram (talk) 13:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Highwinds Network Group

Contested prod which will eventually arrive here. Seeking debate, improvement if poss. No opinion as yet. AndrewHowse (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you in advance for taking the time to consider allowing the Highwinds Network Group article to remain. I created the article to help educate interested parties about one of the growing, well-funded content delivery networks. If you reference the Content Delivery Network article, several CDNs are listed. Each of them has a Wikipedia article as well with basic information about the CDN. Some of these are smaller companies with smaller networks and less funding. When I originally created the Highwinds Network Group article, I included much more information such as links to national press about Highwinds, listings on industry websites, blogs, and partner pages, and information about partners such as Adobe and Microsoft. When the article was marked for deletion, I went back and edited it to mirror the types of information on the other CDN articles. I figured that way it would be kept up just like the other company's articles. I recognize that I am new to Wikipedia and as much as I have studied the rules and am trying to learn the correct procedures, I think I may need some help. Please let me know the types of information that should or should not be included on this article for it to not be deleted. I am happy to make the edits that you recommend. Thank you. Wjmoore (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see links to stories about funding, and I see a couple of lists. The lists of Adobe/Silverlight partners aren't really helpful here. What you need is some references to establish notability, in order to meet the requirements of notability of companies.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are only a handful of content delivery networks in the world. It's an important tech subject, and any such company that obtains $55M in funding is pretty notable by definition. The coverage of the funding event in major publications (e.g. Red Herring) illustrates the point. Wikidemo (talk) 02:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Company in question has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and these are included in the article (thus meets WP:N). I would like to ask the nominator the rationale for nomination, as it is not described in the nomination. Is it being contended for lack of notability, or for other reasons? Arsenikk (talk) 09:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Rationale is that this page has a chequered history, including deletion for expired prod on 4 May, subsequent restoration as contested prod after the creator inquired at WP:EAR, and in my view some marginal notability issues. I brought it here to force the issue. One can contend that AfD shouldn't a forcing house for improve or delete, but it works to achieve that much better than anything else. Original creator has added more references to enhance claims to notability. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. There seems to be sufficient notability in the references. However as written and without inline citations the article is a bad read. However that is not a reason to delete, just a reason to cleanup. Maybe after a rewrite with citations the picture will be clear. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:35, 10 May 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.