Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steadfast Networks

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 no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steadfast Networks

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

This is not a noteworthy company and does not meet encyclopedic standards for being listed here. One author contributed everything to the article and if they were really interested in keeping a SteadFast Networks article about SteadFast Networks they would surely of listed the recent happenings at SteadFast Networks.

It appears this article was created merely to point out that Steadfast hosts 'hate sites' and therefore is an article based purely on bias.Woods01 (talk) 02:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I didn't create it for the hate site list (their response to the article puts that into context very well), I just didn't have much time to look up more sources. I specifically made sure that it hit the requirements for a notability and created it, thinking that someone else would improve it or I would find time to add more noteworthy information. It isn't my fault that nobody else has added anything. You say that it doesn't fit encyclopedic standards but don't cite any notability guidelines (the relevant one being WP:CORP, which this passes) --Nick Catalano _contrib ^talk 04:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nick Catalano. — $Jeff G. ツ$ 01:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My afd reason was backed up by Nick's keep. Nick's keep cited no reasons to keep the article.

It does not meet WP:CORP, godaddy would meet that. The only reason this company would be notable in this regard is once again the hosting of hate sites.

It's a few man company which explains nobody else being involved with it's article. Nothing in the article is missing from steadfasts own website other than the hate sites.

I understand you want to keep it because you made it but it doesn't meet the standards for being here nor is anyone else contributing because there is nothing to add.

My not citing WP policy in the afd goes without saying.Woods01 (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no significant coverage about this company. The hosting of the hate sites doesn't seem to have attracted all that much notice. The only coverage of substance appears from DataCenterKnowledge.com but that's all. -- Whpq (talk) 16:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is DataCenterKnowledge and Inc Magazine in addition to the Tribune. There are 3 secondary sources that I would consider noteworthy. There is also PingZine Magazine, but that is a smaller magazine that I know Steadfast advertises in, so I decided to keep that source out. My goal was to provide multiple secondary sources, which I did. --Nick Catalano _contrib ^talk 17:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not consider the Inc stuff to be coverage of any significance. Ping's article reads like press release rehash. -- Whpq (talk) 20:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of significance, let alone any notability, could be CSD A7, but never the less fails WP:GNG. Codf1977 (talk) 09:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It easily meets GNG. Significant and reliable coverage by the Tribune and DataCenter Knowledge. I based the article around the article for Dreamhost, which has had multiple articles for deletion and passed each time. And Steadfast is no smaller than Dreamhost was when that article was first created in 2005. --Nick Catalano _contrib ^talk 22:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Steadfast Networks[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not sure why this is being railroaded. Not all of the refs look good but there's definitely enough there for me to WP:VERIFY. Different editors have different standards for notability. Lower standards need to prevail until the article has had time to mature - it's only been with us for a month and a half! --Kvng (talk) 15:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an ISP or web hosting business, one of many. Being listed on lists of "5000 Fastest Growing Private Companies in America" does not confer encyclopedic significance on each of the 5000 business so listed. Neither does being the web host for a handful of hate sites. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 11:38, 30 September 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.