Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DreamHost (2nd nomination)

DreamHost

AfDs for this article:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bravenet Web Services (bundled)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DreamHost
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DreamHost (2nd nomination)

DreamHost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This company is non-notable, they fail both WP:WEB and WP:CORP. It is nearly impossible to find reliable secondary sources (non-blog, non-forum) that demonstrate significant non-incidental, non-trivial coverage of DreamHost. Very few other Web hosting companies in the Web hosting Category have articles. In the most recent Deletion Discussion the primary source referenced to support "notability", webhosting.info, was deleted from this article for questionable reliability, as discussed here on the talk page. Further, this primary source "data" is likely skewed by Domain_tasting and domain parking, as acknowledged by the source. Judas278 (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Actually, I don't think WP:WEB even applies here -- it's Dreamhost that we need to assert notability for, not its website.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - the OR claim about "domain tasting" skewing results fails to recognize that the quoted figure refers to hosted domains and not active domains - the webhostinginfo.com number refers to hosting (where tasting does not apply), not registrations. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Response - False. (1) This is the identical OR used for the claim of "One of the largest web hosting companies in the world". (2) The source methodology page states "Currently we have not begun to check whether a domain name is actually a hosted. We will soon be differentiating between Domains that are only Registered, Domains that are Parked/Forwarded, and Domains that actually host a unique website. This will reflect accurately the count of hosted clients and exclude the parked/forwarded clients. The current Web Hosting company rank is simply based on the total domains count. Since we do not have a differentiation between Hosted and non-Hosted domains yet, these total counts sometimes result in skewed rankings. Judas278 (talk) 22:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Um, Judas -- if he's citing the source, how is it original research?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a primary source, which is being interpreted by the editor. Incorrectly. With false claims of what the raw data means and how reliable it is. Judas278 (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Um, no, it's a secondary source. The primary source here is the nameservers that the various hosting companies run: Webhosting.info is analyzing this data, so it's a secondary source. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

There's no point re-hashing the same old discussion here. Judas278 (talk) 00:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure there is: you were mistaken that time, too. It may not be a reliable source, but it's definitely not a primary one. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It is a simple list, like "census results" which is listed as a primary source example. Judas278 (talk) 04:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Independent coverage:

• The Hollywood Reporter
• PC Pro (UK)
• Web Host Industry Review

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete unless new sources come to light. Most of the article contents, and most of the sources, constitute a laundry list of operational "incidents". There's a distinct lack of non-trivial coverage - material written about DreamHost rather than about things that happened to DreamHost. On that basis, I think this subject isn't notable. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

How about that WHIR link above? While it deals with the June 2006 outage, it does so in depth, and talks about how marketing bloggers picked up the incident as an example of good customer service.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The sources listed above by Sarek are enough to demonstrate borderline notability, in my opinion. I'm reserving judgment for now. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: WHIR link: Ironically, the latest effort to remove incidents would remove the WHIR source, which is currently in the article. Judas278 (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - One of the largest web hosting companies in the world, and a significantly-sized and fast-growing domain registrar as well. Efforts to improve the article with more information about what the company does and why it is notable have been stymied by a small group of users that included former (disgruntled) customers and single purpose account holders. There is plenty of independent coverage in reliable sources about DreamHost and the service the company offers. Example sources I found in a quick search include:
  • Webmasters host music dreams and live streams - The Hollywood Reporter (about how DreamHost started)
  • Cyberclinic: Help! Someone has hijacked my homepage - The Independent (about "no-nonsense" transparent hosts that offer access to settings)
  • The Brash Boys at 37signals Will Tell You: Keep it Simple, Stupid - Wired (magazine) (about offering Ruby on Rails to customers)
  • Life's less of a gas - New Haven Register (about DreamHost offsetting carbon footprint)

-- Scjessey (talk) 02:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Articles 2 and 3 above mention DreamHost merely in passing. The articles are mostly on different topics. Article 4 above is only available with registration. Note: The above opinion is now unsigned, due to "refactoring", and the claims about "stymied" efforts is false. Judas278 (talk) 02:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

  Irrelevant. As I indicated above, they were just the first links in reliable sources I found. I made no special effort to locate anything. Plenty of sources exist. As far as your claim of "false" is concerned, you are actively stymieing efforts right now, with your continued rejection of all proposals for improvement. Your own comments here are evidence of this. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Delete. The article doesn't meet WP:WEB or WP:CORP and there exist almost no reliable secondary sources (non-blog, non-forum) so placing practically anything in the article is almost impossible. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT AN INDISCRIMINATE COLLECTION OF INFORMATION and WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A DIRECTORY.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, of course it doesn't meet WP:WEB, because it's a company, not web content. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that doesn't make any sense. Web hosts _are_ specifically covered by the guideline? Off to the talk page.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course, both WP:WEB and WP:CORP are just guidelines, and not policy. Wikipedia's policy on verifiability as been satisfied by the list of reliable sources that mention DreamHost above. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Being a registrar makes Domain_tasting to skew rankings plausible, and likely, considering the disclaimer of the source. The source for claiming "one of world's biggest" is not reliable, as they state. Judas278 (talk) 05:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

  Even if that were true, we could charitably divide the given numbers by 2 and DreamHost would still be one of the world's biggest web hosts. Either way, you have no sources to backup your claims of domain tasting being "likely", and it could just as easily be completely false. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• We could just as arbitrarily divide the numbers by 10, 100 or 1000. Domain_tasting clearly states the largest registrars used domain tasting, and the "data" source has a clear disclaimer. The bottom line is the "data" is worthless and supports nothing. Judas278 (talk) 02:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - regarding WP:WEB, it is worth noting that DreamHost is not just a web host. It is also a domain name registrar, offers a remote backup service, a file hosting service and it is a free application service provider. The range of services the company offers goes well beyond the limiting criteria of WP:WEB. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Point taken regarding it being a domain name registrar, wikipedia is however not a directory. But this remote backup service, file HOSTING service and free application service provided that's all standard webhosting services and sorta ridiculous to mention in an afd discussion.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I fail to see how offering a free application service is "standard". Can you name any other web hosts (apart from Google, Microsoft and Apple) who provide free application services? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - references provided by Sarek of Vulcan and Scjessey above, as well as the sourcing in the article, more than meet the requirements for notability, as far as I'm concerned. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep due to additional references provided. Meets WP:CORP, and therefore meets WP:WEB. ···日本穣^? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep If the only argument is a lack of notability then there is no valid argument for deletion. It does seem that reliable sources have made note of this company. Chillum 22:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - (Some text nixed, original here) the subject might be notable enough to covered by an article on Wikipedia [...] However, many sources cited by the article, and even ones mentioned in this discussion, don't meet the basic requirements for WP:CITE; most are not reliable secondary sources with a strong reputation for fact-checking. Many of the sources cited in the article are weblogs which are not reliable sources, ... Others are news sources which provide only incidental discussion. ... --Mysidia (talk) 23:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes the article needs to go, there are no good sources and it has been getting in peoples ways for years now.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 23:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

If there was ever an argument to avoid in deletion discussions, that is one.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep - The sources meet sufficient standards that the article should escape deletion. The references need to be cleaned up. And a domain registrar WHOIS listing is not a source. The article is salvagable, and the minor issues (like choice of source) should be hashed out on the article's talk page. --Mysidia (talk) 01:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment the below is replying to moved to talk

Precisely the sources cited both in this AfD and in the article are of very low quality and that doesn't mean that we should try to find some quality sources for it but rather that we should just get rid of it since notability has not been shown.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 01:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. It's a large, major web hosting company that has existed for over ten years now. *Dan T.* (talk) 01:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:ILIKEIT. Well... I actually think they are a lame web host but this is one of those times not having an article on something so popular would make us look silly. BJ^Talk 05:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as above by NihonJoe and Chillum, could be cleaned up but notable enough for an article. Dayewalker (talk) 06:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. However much bolding and capitalisation has gone on in the discussion above, the fact is that there is plenty of coverage in reliable sources found by Google Books and Google News. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: I find 275 Google News hits, 78 Google Book hits, and 130 Google Scholar hits. That's a wealth of information, easily sufficient to write an article. The news articles include pieces from InfoWorld, the Register, Wired, Hollywood Reporter, The Industry Standard, Computerworld, New Haven Register, and so on. FWIW, I don't use them for hosting, never have, don't recommend them, and once wrote a blog post titled Dreamhost Considered Harmful. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• keep in addition to other sources found, here are two more (one from Singapore and one from The Daily Telegraph) about their being in a lawsuit with Mel Gibson's girlfriend.--kelapstick (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I take it you support including such info' in the article. Maybe you could comment where that was recently discussed and opposed by company apologists (or whatever they should be called). Judas278 (talk) 22:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that discussion, but that is a whole other kettle of fish. Even excluding those two, the company passes the general notability guidelines as it has received significant coverage in the independent multiple reliable sources that have been posted here. --kelapstick (talk) 22:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Can we please stop referring to good faith editors as "company apologists" and the like? -- Scjessey (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete If the coverage this compaby received is only about its systems failures, then that is non-notable. Debresser (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

  There is plenty of coverage about DreamHost in media sources that is not about system failures, but the article currently doesn't reflect that as well as it could. As I said above, attempts to improve the article (and give it some balance) have been stymied by a small group of ex-customers unhappy with their experiences. Numerous examples of media coverage have already been given above, so I won't bother listing them all again. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

  The above comment is false. Please see discussion for details. Judas278 (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - the company easily meets are inclusion guidelines. Their problems are unfortunate for customers, but certainly not a valid reason for exclusion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)