Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ServerAxis

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. MBisanz ^talk 22:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ServerAxis

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

This article tells nothing about the company. Reads like Incident covered by daily news paper. Why this article is even here? and who wrote this? is doubtful. Light2021 (talk) 06:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article text concerns a single incident's impact on other organisations and my own searches are finding nothing better. Fails WP:NOTNEWS #2 and WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete similar to a bio WP:ONEEVENT.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:ONEEVENT only applies to biographies, and the incident received significant coverage in Forbes, FiveThirtyEight, and other reliable, independent sources, enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Barring that, Redirect to Downtime#Famous outages, which briefly mentions the incident, as it is a plausible search term at the very least. Smartyllama (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- At this point, I'm convinced it's not notable enough for its own article, but it's a plausible search term and should redirect to where it's mentioned. Any discussion on whether it's notable enough to be mentioned there belongs on the Downtime talk page, not this AfD. Smartyllama (talk) 12:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete instead as what still stays and is noticed here is the fact it not only simply lists the expected company information, but then the noticeably large section for its attention about the sports events, none of this actually establishes independent notability and substance and there's nothing suggesting otherwise better. To note also, the sources and information are all trivial and unconvincing so there's literally nothing else to say about this article. SwisterTwister talk 22:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So delete it because it has more than just the basic company information? I'm confused. And "instead" of what? Keep or redirect? That's not an argument against the latter. Smartyllama (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable private company. 90% of the content is about the outage. If the outage were notable (of which I'm not convinced, see WP:NOTNEWS) then an article should be created on that. Otherwise, nothing stands out about this one and coverage is insufficient to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Downtime#Famous outages, where ServerAxis is mentioned, in lieu of deletion. There is significant coverage about the outage in this article in FiveThirtyEight and this article from Fortune. Cunard (talk) 22:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to merge if it's still advertising and if it can simply be solved by briefly mentioning the company (as it should be) at the other article; the 2 listed sources are currently listed at the article as it is and they are no exhibiting any convincing signs currently used as it is. SwisterTwister talk 23:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to merge if it's still advertising – the article discusses how ServerAxis caused controversy by having an outage that had a major impact on women's basketball statistics and coverage of the sport. That cannot be considered advertising. More material about the outage can be merged to Downtime#Famous outages, which is why I support a merge. Cunard (talk) 05:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. Material which reflects poorly on the company cannot be considered advertising. Smartyllama (talk) 13:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, an unremarkable, non-notable company and trivia. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 01:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (no need to merge/redirect). This is pretty much WP:NOTNEWS. A bit of coverage about the server outage is the only thing available. I am opposed to merging it as it was not a notable downtime/outage. These kind of outages are routine for companies and Wikipedia would become a repository of trivia if we start keeping information about random outages. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? What appears to be a permanent outage is "routine for companies"? That seems unlikely. It's more than a random outage, at the very least. Maybe it doesn't deserve its own article, but at the very least, redirect it to another page where it's mentioned. And if you don't think it should be mentioned there, discuss it on that talk page, not on this AfD. Smartyllama (talk) 12:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To those who voted delete, why not redirect it to another page where it's mentioned? Pinging @AllyD:, @TonyTheTiger:, @K.e.coffman:, and @Kierzek:. The other two already gave a reason, though I fail to see how this is "advertising" as SwisterTwister said or a "routine outage" unworthy of mention on the downtime article, as Lemongirl1942 said, and in any case, this isn't the appropriate place to discuss the latter. Smartyllama (talk) 13:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, still delete, fails WP:NOTNEWS. Kierzek (talk) 13:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an argument for not keeping the page, it's not an argument against redirection. Many pages which fail WP:NOTNEWS are redirected rather than deleted where a suitable target exists, and redirects are cheap, so there's really no good reason not to here. Smartyllama (talk) 13:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- okay, delete first, and then redirect at editorial discretion. There's no need to keep the article history as it's strictly WP:PROMO content. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see how material mostly critical of the company qualifies as WP:PROMO. If it were, it's failed miserably. Smartyllama (talk) 02:01, 30 October 2016 (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.