Talk:Endurance International Group

Notability
I believe this company is notable because it's one of the world's largest web hosting company, if not THE largest. I would add up the marketshare of all its acquisitions, but that would be original research. Also, note that many of the companies it bought out already have WP articles, so if those smaller companies are notable, then the parent company certainly is. MichaelBluejay (talk) 07:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The article should be tagged with both citation needed and recent events. Host Gator buyout has not yet been officially confirmed by either company and there's only one source on the information (lacking citation). June 23, 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.19.127.209 (talk) 05:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced statements about the outage
Statements like these need reliable third-party sources:
 * "After admitting to two switches failing in the datacenter"
 * "Endurance altered their explanation of the problem in their summary of the event to say that the outage was due to routine, scheduled maintenance,only"
 * "a claim that serves the purpose of voiding their guarantee to customers"
 * "This guarantee offers a free month of server for this sort of downtime which they have refused to honor"
 * "What they also failed to acknowledge is that this failure came on the heels of a migration of hosting accounts from a reliable facility in Dallas, TX to the facility in Provo, Utah that had the faulty switches"

I can't find any source that states any sort of guarantee, much less a free month of hosting. Also, I see an acknowledgement of switch issues on the official response page, but nothing to state it wasn't due to scheduled maintenance that went wrong. Lastly, I don't see any evidence of an "altered explanation", and certainly no RS stating any "changed" wording was motive-based. All the official updates, including the statements about the switches, are still there and there's no so-called self-censorship/retraction. This aside, anything would require reliable third-party sources. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 21:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion
Reasons 1 through 3 were my original reason for proposing deletion. Reason 4 came as soon as the deletion was proposed.

(1) It appears this Wikipedia entry is an advertisement. I don't see the encyclopedic value in providing the entry and listing their customers. Perhaps it would be better to have the company put the information in a prospectus and provide it to potential investors. (2) The company's core business is "small business advocacy in the internet age" (to paraphrase from the website). Listing of their clients seems to be an SEO trick. Consider the number of entries that use a BBB citation as a reference. (3) The company appears to have been performing "brand repair" anonymously on Wikipedia. For example, Network Solutions's history shows unpopular text was removed by an anonymous user with an IP address of 63.149.124.133. That IP address is allocated to Endurance International Group; confer WHOIS 63.149.124.133. (4) This proposed deletion and accompanying comment was immediately reverted without reason or corrective actions. The reversion was anonymous from an IP address of 210.56.103.116, which appears to be untraceable in India.

Jeffrey Walton (talk) 04:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for bringing your concerns to the talk page. For your first concern, can you provide specific examples of what on this article appears to be an advertisement? The opening section is simple factual information about the company, followed by a list of subsidiaries (not customers or clients), and a relevant section regarding a service outage. This is typical of information you would find on any company's wikipedia article. Your second concern appears to reflect the first: you think it's a list of clients, which it is not. Your 3rd concern is that someone at the company has been repairing the brand, yet you cite changes to Network Solution's article. Network Solution is a competing web hosting provider, not a subsidiary, meaning they have been making repairs to their competitors brand. Thirdly, your concern is that your deletion template was removed, to which I have to point out that is exactly the purpose of the deletion template: it is to be removed by someone who disagrees and should not be placed up again, although you are welcome to nominate the article for delete through that page.Scoundr3l (talk) 07:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

March 21, reverts
There seem to be three matters for discussion: Firstly, the addition of a "controversies" header. Secondly, the removal of the dirtmaker source. And thirdly, the changes to the Huffington Post entry. As for the first, I honestly don't see why you're trying to remove the header in the first place, so I'll need more information. For these second, please refer to WP:ABOUTSELF, which specifically mentions that self-published sources should not be used when they involve claims about third party sources. In this case, the author of the blog is claiming that he was damaged by this company, making it contentious as well. Without a third-party source to verify the damage, this is an unacceptable addition.

For the third issue, I have included additional information from Huffington Post because it is vital to understanding the controversy. The original entry said that Chai's private information was made known to the Thai government. What it failed to mention (and which can be verified in the source) is that the information revealed was his IP address and email and that Chai was not a Netfirms customer, but a visitor to a Netfirms hosted website. Anyone who's run a website before knows that all visitors' IP addresses are logged and the information is in no way private. And while Chai's email could be called private information, it's also arbitrary (i.e. unlike your street address or IP address, nobody can tell you what your email address is) Chai likely provided this information when he signed up to comment on the site. The controvery is a non-point as the site owner has every right to access that information. Rather than add this information as OR, I've included enough information for the reader to make up their own mind. I hope that helps shed some light on my changes. Scoundr3l (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Scoundr3l, Regarding the fist issue, as I already pointed out, I removed the "controversies" heading because there was only one subheading that fit. The outages are not controversies. You normally want an least two similar headings before creating a more general heading above them. But since this issue is not really that important, I will leave it alone.


 * Regarding the second issue, please reread the guideline you are citing. That guideline pertains to the use of self-published material as a reference in a wiki about that same publisher. The reference was written by Dirt Maker, and the wiki is about Endurance; two different entities. Also, there is no guideline against using references simply because the author expresses contention. Contention exists in both of the Chai references, especially the legal complaint. You cannot get much more contentious than a legal complaint. I am adding the Dirt Maker sentence back since I respectfully believe both of your reasons for removal are in error.


 * Regarding the third issue, I wrote a concise neutral sentence. Your various rewordings did nothing to improve that sentence. If anyone wants details, they can read the sources. Anyway, I am going to let you have this one since your last rewording of that sentence looks much better than your previous ones.


 * Your diligence, vigilance, and passionate argument for Endurance against Chai makes me wonder if you have been tasked by Endurance. This whole experience has been extremely painful. Please do not accuse me of creating an edit war while you are standing vigil over your repeated removals of content; especially when all the reasons for the removals have been disputed. Now that I have shown you were in error, please do not remove my contributed content again before discussing it. Respectfully, Storyfixer (talk) 07:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding the first, I and a previous editor apparently agree that there are three headings which fit under the category "controversies". I will be restoring that header pending no better argument that your disagreement with what constitutes a controversy.


 * Regarding the second, according to the previously linked article "Self-published sources are largely not acceptable on Wikipedia" but "Self-published may be used as sources of information about themselves, so long as: ... 2. it does not involve claims about third parties" Since this self-published blog is making a claim about Endurance International, it is an unacceptable source for that claim. Since the claim is contentious, it will be removed per WP:RS until you can find an independent and reliable source for the claim.


 * Regarding the third, this is an acceptable and welcome addition as it comes from an established and reliable source. Your sentence was neutral enough, but my additions came from the source itself and I've already explained why they were necessary. The primary motivation for your reversion appears to be that you don't like the changes, not that they violate any policies. It may help you to review WP:ROWN, which states "Don't revert an edit because it is unnecessary.... Even if you find an article was slightly better before an edit, in an area where opinions could differ, you should not revert that edit, especially if you are the author of the prior text." My vigilance will be none of your concern so long as we can both edit the article in a civil manner and according to policy. I've thoroughly explained myself, so if you've any further cause to remove the changes, please relay them here. Thank you. Scoundr3l (talk) 04:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with Scoundr3l. Thanks for your contribution. I also amended the reference to Thailand. This is a global audience, and if you were a citizen of Thailand, it would read wrong as "foreign government". jbergloff (talk) 06:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, that's an embarrassing oversight. Thanks for the catch. Scoundr3l (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Scoundr3l, I have already conceded on your first and third issues. But nevertheless, you need to have the last word. So be it. Regarding the other issue, be careful in your grasping. The sentence you constructed above by linking two phrases together with the word "but" is ambiguous, and implies something that is not entirely true. Wikipedia has rules (explained where you obtained the second phrase of that sentence) pertaining to self-published source about themselves. But the Dirt Maker article is not being used as a source of information about Dirt Maker. You are still using an argument which I have already shown to be invalid. I am restoring my contribution. Please do not remove it again without reason. Respectfully, Storyfixer (talk) 19:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I've already linked the article. Follow the link and read it. I constructed a sentence out of the pertinent information because I don't feel like I can trust you to take responsibility for reading and understanding the policy yourself before making edits. I'm still repeating myself. You can not use self-published sources to make claims about a third party. You can use DirtMaker as a source of information about DirtMaker. You can not use DirtMaker as a source of information about Endurance International because nobody is fact-checking the information. It violates WP:RS. The content will again be removed for the specified reasons. If you want the last word, focus on making valuable contributions that do not violate policy and stop trying to prevent others from improving the article. Thank you. Scoundr3l (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I have read what you wanted me to read. And I have shown you that it does not mean what you say it means. You do not know what you are talking about. And you are becoming extremely rude. I am undoing your revert. This is the last time I will put up with you. Stop vandalizing my contributions, and ask Wikipedia for a determination. Storyfixer (talk) 22:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Clean up
@Tutelary, Thanks for pointing out that headers should describe their content. Noted, and will amend. The other changes I made were in the commit comment, and removed dead links. Since network outages or server outages can be categorized separately, and privacy issues are a concern of EIG customers and internet users who may be using EIG hosted websites, I am making it a major separate heading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wabstdev (talk • contribs) 18:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * , it was called a 'blackout' by media coverages and that's what it will remain to be called. Why are you so particular about this, too? The controversy was noted by several media outlets, as well. The fact that you have only edited this page makes it seem as though you may have a Conflict of interest.

You also removed: Other things. It seems to me you're trying to depreciate what it was; a controversy. Tutelary (talk) 18:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Dates
 * Sources

@Tutelary Yes, I did remove one dead source, but I added another in the links section below. I did not remove any dates. I agree that blackouts should blackouts per this wiki article on blackouts. I will amend the headers per the request. I do not have a conflict of interest, I just have some accounts where I make small edits, to protect my privacy. Thanks for your concern. I will keep the changes to the text, and revert the headings per your suggestion.Wabstdev (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC) edit: fixed link.

I see where I removed the dates, and added them back in. My apologies, I thought I had added them to the headers.

EIG Bashing
It seems like this article is more about bashing EIG than it is about the company itself. Is it common for other articles to list outages? When a cable TV or electric utility provider has an outage, do they get listed in the articles each time? I almost get the impression that competitors are more interested in using this article to make the company in question look bad in hopes that some business may come their way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.126.235 (talk) 23:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * It wasn't just a normal outage, if 40+ electric utility providers in the USA all went out at the same time, for over a day, it would be notable too. Ikmxx (talk) 01:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, it would get its own article, and companies involved would be linked to and from it: Northeast Blackout of 2003 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.51.13.50 (talk) 05:30, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Article recommended to me by competitor
I can confirm the earlier account that this article is used to bash EIG. I called a competing company to ask about pricing, and at the end of the call I said I wanted to shop around. I was told that since I was looking to buy hosting, it would be useful for me to know about Endurance International Group. They were the parent company of a lot of hosting brands, the spokesperson explained, and I could learn about them from Wikipedia. He never said anything hostile, he only mentioned EIG and Wikipedia.

That this article is being used to competitors' benefit speaks to the degree of its fault. All the "incidents" (which seem small and not atypical of a hosting company, especially one so large) should be evaluated critically to determine if notability is merited. Then, equally notable neutral and positive information should be added to counter the negative information that remains. The overall article should be unbiased. Right now it is biased against EIG, and competitors in the industry know it. Denlah (talk) 03:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've removed all the incidents, and I'm the person who defended them before. I may also remove the 'privacy issues' as people have filed frivolous lawsuits in the past against any company, alleging many nasty things. What happened to that lawsuit? I now know the significance of long term content, and this is not it. They may be encyclopedic if they led to something else. Say, one outage led to a loss of customers which lowered their stock price. That would be significant. Tiny little outages? Even companies like Google get those, and it's not particularly helpful to mention or document every single one. That's true of this. Tutelary (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit Warring
User:Oldschooldsl, you appear to have a vested interest in the topic in spite of not having edited since 2011. You need to stop edit warring and listen. There is no 'agenda' that I have, if anything, you might be the one having one since you go on hiatus for 3 years and then, after there was a silent consensus to remove the material, you go and edit war it back in. Read WP:BRD. You did a bold edit, were reverted, and you should have gone to the talk page than continuing to edit war. You're at 4 reverts right now, and you need to revert your edit and maybe the reviewing administrator will go easy on you should I decide to report you for breaking 3RR. I'm also pinging editor because they dealt with you in the past and gave advice. Maybe if you won't listen to me, maybe you'll listen to him. Tutelary (talk) 04:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit Warring
Tutelary I and others have used WikiPedia as a point of reference in historical facts. Your agenda seems to be to remove those facts which many other websites have quoted as WikiPedia as a source. Please stop attempting to rewrite history, by removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldschooldsl (talk • contribs) 04:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No, my agenda is to make the article satisfy due weight. In the majority of the 'outages', the primary website is being used, which is not a gauge of hot 'notable' the outages are, if at all. Even Google has outages, and they are not notable because nothing of long term significance has come out of it. Now, please tell me what long term significance there is in edit warring these 'outages' back in under the guise of 'historical facts'. Tutelary (talk) 04:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit Warring Follow Up
Tutelary
 * When Google goes out it does not take several billion websites with it. When EIG's network and services fail, whole websites and service providers, including VoIP (voice over IP) phone services fail. This constitutes as a historical event within the worldwide web.
 * Do you have any sources that prove that any of the other outages (other than the first one listed) have long term significance? Meaning, stock price went down, notable distrust, etc. If you don't, then there's no need to keep them because even if something is verifiable, that doesn't mean it makes it into the article. Tutelary (talk) 04:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Tutelary


 * I have flagged this for administrator review.

Historical accuracy concerning places and events that affect people worldwide including millions of people and billions of corporations is WikiPedia's prime function. It was the founding point on why this site even exist and functions today.

This is a documented historical fact of the worldwide web that did indeed affect billions of products and services, taking down an estimated quarter of the internet with it. At the time of the events it was covered by World News and the article until you removed it, cited several valid news sources.

cc: Dreadstar

EIG = Unified Layer?
Is Unified Layer (AS46606) a product by Endurance International Group? lowendtalk.com/discussion/19753/what-is-unified-layer --128.90.94.28 (talk) 22:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Unified Layer is a data center that some EIG brands use, most notably Bluehost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.234.226 (talk) 10:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Blackouts
Hey, what am I missing here? The four paragraphs of the section apparently refer to multiple blackout incidents, but they are not differentiated by date, or in any other manner. In the last paragraph of the section we are told the precise times of day that the given blackout started and ended! But we are (likewise) left to guess what the date was. Toddcs (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Although an older reply, I've removed the entire section save one and merged with the privacy issues. Tutelary (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Brands Owned by EIG
The company owns and operates numerous hosting businesses, with shared support information and support agents. A partial list of EIG brands  include: • 2slick.com

• AccountSupport

• Arvixe LLC

• A Small Orange

• ApolloHosting

• Berry Information Systems L.L.C.

• BigRock

• BizLand

• BlueDomino

• Bluehost

• Directi

• Dollar2Host

• Domain.com

• DomainHost

• Dot5Hosting

• Dotster

• easyCGI

• eHost

• EntryHost

• Escalate Internet

• FastDomain

• FatCow

• FreeYellow

• Glob@t

• Homestead

• HostCentric

• HostClear

• HostGator

• Hostnine

• HostMonster

• hostwithmenow.com

• HostYourSite.com

• HyperMart

• IMOutdoors

• Intuit Websites

• iPage

• IPOWER/iPowerWeb

• JustHost

• LogicBoxes

• MojoMarketplace.

• MyDomain

• MyResellerHome

• NetFirms

• Networks Web Hosting

• Nexx

• PowWeb

• PureHost

• ReadyHosting.com

• ResellerClub

• Saba-Pro

• SEO Hosting

• Southeast Web

• Spry

• StartLogic

• SuperGreen Hosting

• Typepad

• USANetHosting

• VirtualAvenue

• VPSLink

• WebHost4Life

• webhosting.info

• Webstrike Solutions

• Xeran

• YourWebHosting — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freeinfa (talk • contribs) 12:38, 17 January 2015‎ (UTC)


 * No-one is disputing that EIG owns these brands. But Wikipedia is not an advertising platform. Maproom (talk) 08:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * TheRedPenOfDoom, Maproom, 103.242.217.242 (Bangladesh), 111.93.159.50 (India) are recently aggressively deleting the brands under EIG for unspecified reasons. Listing of subsidiaries of a multinational corporation is clearly of encyclopedic value, and has no relation with advertising. You are suspiciously acting like editors-for-hire on behalf of EIG. Freeinfa (talk) 10:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * They are in fact being removed for specified policy based reasons. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've restored that section. I can see where your thinking is on this, but seems that the value of this massive number of entities "borged" up by EIG being known by researchers far outweighs any "advertising" type feel it may have.  This corporation does not need a WP page to advertise for it.  There is no other place one can find on the web where one can see that all these former independent hosts, registrars, etc. now belong to one entity.  Thus, it has encyclopedic value.  That said, the references/sources in the entire article are quite poor.  One would hope that they will be gone over and cleaned up.  Though, it may be difficult as perhaps EIG keeps these acquisitions quiet as they do seem to want each entity to look independent.  They do in fact own even more entities than are in this large list.  So, TRPoD, if there is some major policy violation, please mention it here and make the case for removing the list, I may have missed something.  Also, thank you for agreeing & removing the WP:POV violation I'd flagged.72.234.220.38 (talk) 05:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That reasoning is even more contrary to the purpose of an encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  10:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, your use of "Righting Great Wrongs" as a reason to remove non-POV, non-biased, research from this article has no foundation in logic. Further details can be found on your talk page. There is no wrong-being-righted here.  There is data for people to research.  I would suggest you do not visit the Verio Wikipedia article or you may really have a conniption. ;-)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.220.38 (talk) 23:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That other articles are in more need of clean up is not a valid rationale to restore inappropriate content here. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  15:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, as that Verio article is just one of many such, you may wish to possibly acknowledge that you are mistaken and informational lists such as these are part of Wikipedia, have been since inception, and are fully allowed under Wikipedia policies. You have given several reasons you don't feel it should be here: First, "non encyclopedic, wikipedia is not a directory or advertising platform, primary sourced etc" => But it's not directory nor an advert.  It's factual data of brands now owned by the subject corporation.  Then just "not a directory" =>  No, Wikipedia is not, and nor is this section.  Third, "there is no consensus for this" => The other editors who disagree with what seems to be your consensus-of-one tend to say there is.  Then currently, back to "no consensus to include bloat WP:NOTDIRECTORY" =>  "Bloat" is not a Wikipedia policy, it's been more of a viewpoint fairly easily determined my a majority of readers/editors.  In this case, there is no consensus about bloat; I and other editors feel it is not.
 * Let me end this point by directing you to Wikipedia's own reference for what lists are allowed which is referenced by the very WP:NOTDIRECTORY you claim prohibits it. It covers stand-alone lists in general, and lists of companies and organizations in particular.  This makes it pretty clear as to this data-set being on-policy.
 * At this point, I suggest you leave it as-is as it's getting into edit-war territory. If you feel as strongly about this as you seem to, and you have a wish to remove the data once again, instead, please respect the other editors and open a Wikipedia "Request for mediation".  It is easy to do and will allow someone with knowledge on policy, article strengths & weaknesses, etc. to review this and give suggestions.  This is far gentler than calling for an arbitration which is more complex and a bit more Draconian.  —  Fair enough?  72.234.220.38 (talk) 22:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This article is not a stand alone list though, so the MOS you link to doesn't apply. Unless you suggest that's what we change this article to.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 04:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello EvergreenFir. Interesting point, though, as the much older Verio example shows, this sort of list-of-acquisitions is a normal part of Wikipedia articles. There are many other examples of this.  Since this is a huge corporation, and getting larger, it would seem changing this to a stand-alone-list type article would not be of value.  Would it be better to move this section to a new stand-alone-list article by itself, and link to it?  Much as music bands often have their discography, album, etc. lists on separate pages.  Would this make both sides of this happy?  It works for me, it was not my edit, but I certainly do wish that the information retained in the encyclopedia. – 72.234.220.38 (talk) 05:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Further, an IP address re-added the list today (diff) with the edit summary "we put theese companies here to know which hosting to avoid, this is not promotion, but the opposite". While that's not really directly advertising for the competition, that tells me that the list is being added here for reasons other than informing the user about the subject. Thus, I have concerns whether including the list would violate WP:NPOV. —C.Fred (talk) 20:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof did a revert claiming, "We actually need reliable sources for these." This seems to go against a basic Wikipedia policy, the WP:Baby and bathwater policy. This section contains several solid sources/references. What this user is doing is discarding all the information rather than working to improve, correct or tag it. This is the exact policy violation that is used as an example of a baby and bathwater type revert. From that policy page:


 * ''Wikipedia:Revert instead of edit: An editor determines a portion of another contributor's edit needs to be deleted, but removes the entire contribution instead of just the portion that needs to be deleted.
 * Example: "YOUR EDIT DID NOT IDENTIFY THE SOURCE FOR THE CITATION TAG ' ,' SO I REVERTED THE ENTIRE EDIT--EVEN THE CONTENT BASED ON SEVERAL OTHER SOURCES WITH COMPLETE CITATIONS." ''

Wikipedia policy articles state that reverting to remove (non-vandalism) information should be a last resort, not a first one. – 72.234.220.38 (talk) 05:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe that brands that can be absolutely confirmed should be listed, while the rest that are unconfirmed should rename on this page. Therefore, I believe that putting confirmed brands on the page as a confirmed list of acquisitions should be posted on their page, with the brand name, and date of acquisition, as well as references to substantiate said acquisition. SEC Filing notices or mentions in an SEC filing should be considered valid proof, as lying on a SEC form is a federal crime. Mjp1976 (talk) 20:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * JkfkauiaThis rather informative list of brands keeps being deleted from the article, allegedly by marketing staff from EIG who are trying to hide all the web hosting companies their corporation has acquired. This informative list belongs in the article as a matter of public record, however, and any removal attempts by EIG should not be tolerated by the Wikipedia community (many of whom have websites and deserve to know who are the web hosting companies owned by EIG). This listing is not a "directory" but a disclosure of piublic facts in the full spirit of Wikipedia, and so the section should be restored to the main article immediately. At minimum, a new article could or should be created called "Brands owned by Endurance International Group (EIG)" Jkfkauia (talk) 10:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC) Jkfkaui


 * EIG is a publicly traded company, and therefore all actions listed are on the SEC, including ALL OWNED BRANDS. This should be used as a point of reference for all brand listings, as proof of ownership or partial ownership. Any further edit warring after absolute proof is added after using SEC information, should result in Edit Protection being requested or user being banned. Also EIG IP's should be black listed from editing the article, Including all of their brand ip's. Mjp1976 (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
A fresh IP addressed re-added the info back in without discussion here. To explicitly state my objection to the list's inclusion, I feel it is undue given the size of the article, it violations WP:NOTADIRECTORY, and is bordering on being promotional (or at least that seems to be the intent of its addition).  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 16:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with EvergreenFir's point, and to be specific, there are several sources proposed for use here which are not reliable secondary sources, particularly those which make negative claims about the company and are from parties clearly directly involved in disputes with the company. We should be seeking reliable secondary sources for claims about the company and its activities, whether positive or negative. The previously-included section titled "Poor business ethics" additionally is a blatant and unacceptable violation of WP:NPOV. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I wholeheartedly disagree with this decision. As for whether or not the content belongs on Wikipedia - I do believe it does. It is not public information, but researched content. It adds value to the article and provides information, which is just what Wikipedia is about. I've seen more people cite the Directory-rule, however I feel that argument is extremely vague - at best. This is not a directory list, and I'm certain that rule was not designed to prevent valuable content from being published. As for the decision to lock the article, I find it nothing short of amusing that the list was removed prior to doing that. If I'm not mistaken, when protecting an article, that should be done in its current state. Instead, you roll the changes back to exclude it, and then lock it. That to me appears very much bias. CmdrSharp (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not lock the article. An admin did protect the page so that only confirmed editors can edit though. As such, it's still able to be edited, so there's no "current state" to consider.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 19:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Admins will usually look for the last "status quo" version before protecting the article. I'm not speaking for the admin who protected, but it's reasonable to assume that s/he felt the addition of the list was the recent, contentious edit, so s/he reverted to the version before the attempt to insert the list. —C.Fred (talk) 19:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And I wholeheartedly agree with CmdrSharp on this opinion. The edit-waring was bad, and putting a stop to that is probably best.  But the removal of valid content, then the article semi-lock, seems a bit like "ganging up" on us poor IP-only editors.  Sure, we're not at the level of those who decide to create a user name, but for myself, the years of article editing should count for something.  I've never in these years encountered an instance like this where valid data is redacted for reasons that seem to be unfounded.  The issue seems to be two fold on the EIG article:  First, the biased and "blatant and unacceptable violation of WP:NPOV" type edits.  I'd believe that the majority of us believe, and the consensus would be, that removing those was correct.  But, the second part, which concerns the companies acquired by EIG is a different story.  I've pointed out on previous talks that "lists" like this exist in may other articles and have for years.  I cited Verio as a close example.   Yes, the sourcing on every one here is far from perfect, but on many it's rock-solid (meaning from the company's own website and SEC filings).  Wikipedia is supposed to provide knowledge such as this, not hide it.  I will not go as far as claiming any of the reverters have an agenda, I just believe that their good-faith actions are in fact just incorrect.  Whomever did it originally did not seem to set it up as a directory, nor is it promotional, as the company itself seems to downplay all its acquisitions.  I made a suggestion a few days ago that if it is deemed to be not-good-for-the-main-article, then break it out like a list of songs on music groups' Wikipedia articles.  I also could just chalk this up to a bit of edit-laziness; meaning, rather than working to improve, correct or reformat this section, editors just decided to redact the data.  That's not much of the collaborative effort that this project is supposed to be.  I also suggested that if us who edit the page cannot reach a consensus, we request a Wikipedia mediation on this.  But that I believe requires an non-IP only editor to start.  I was hoping we could just work it out on the talk page, but it may not be resolvable.  But, at least we're talking. – 72.234.220.38 (talk) 22:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, a little anecdote here. I went to refer a friend to this page because he was considering hosting options and I just wanted to let him know that he will be dealing with the same company if he chooses any one of their properties, and to advise to just choose the one with the best deal right now because they are all the same otherwise. The marketing is unimportant. The most important information here has been deleted, the list of acquisitions. Nothing could be more material to the contents of this page, than the properties they have bought up and consolidated...nothing. So it's shocking that it's been deleted for pretty poor reasons really, rule pages referenced but no solid explanation of how each section of rule applies. (I read the rule pages, it doesn't) it would not be considered a directory if it was only 4 companies, but the fact is they've acquired tens of them. The fact that their ownership list got very long does not make it less worthy of posting or run it afoul of being a directory. Buying up hosting properties is what EIG actually does, their business model. I have firsthand knowledge of this which of course doesn't belong on the main page..but I used to do tech support for them and the phone could ring for any one of these companies and you would have to pretend to only work for that company. This got confusing of course, so you would look at caller ID if you forgot who the customer thought they were talking to. Now, to the righting great wrongs argument. There is no wrong to be righted here except for the lack of information about the company, the entire purpose of a Wikipedia entry in the first place. It's not "wrong" that they bought up properties. Factually speaking, the company has a vested interest in keeping that information not readily available though, so I am not surprised about the actions of the likely paid off editors removing content here(people from Bangladesh and India just so happened to take an interest in this page?! yeah, right.) The business model involves basically service spam. They own so many companies that if you are fed up with one, and decide to switch, the odds are increasingly in their favor per acquisition that you might just end up with them again under a different subsidiary's name; hence their reason for not being too public about their properties. Now to the NPOV argument about the list of owned properties..complete hogwash. The list itself is 100% neutral, they do own those companies and that is not a point of view, it is purely factual. The reasoning of one of the editors for including the list does not make the list itself a non-neutral point of view, that is an argument devoid of all logic. If the company wishes to keep its properties a bit of a secret that is fine, but this doesn't affect the information being material, nor does it affect neutrality of the point of view for people wanting to keep the information in the open. Keeping information available to all is what Wikipedia is actually about lest we forget, so removing an entire section with specious reasoning and then locking the page sure smells pretty fishy. I suggest that the information gets reposted, just the list of owned companies. I also suggest that this page be taken to mediation as certain users seem to be taking too great of an interest in using loose and illogical arguments to take this information down. Baevar (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I dont see what that has to do with writing an encyclopedia. If we were a consumer guide, perhaps, but we are not. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Why is this even being debated? Listing brands owned by this company is no different than listing products and brands made or owned by any other large firm (pick one and go look at the page! This sort of information is there and NOT debated if it should even be there at all). Seeing as many other companies have their products, brands, and subsidiaries listed, I fail to see why this list continues to be debated beyond credible sources used for citation. What people use the information for is irrelevant to the nature of a reference material and the fact that it is even being discussed is mind boggling. Having worked in the industry in question, I can assure you it is relevant and has value both to workers in the industry and consumers. I fail to grasp why this even being debated unless people have a personal interest (such as being an investor or competitor) and trying to prevent the information from being disclosed and properly documented in an easy to consume format. This entire debate borders on the absurd. Given that this company is not entirely forthcoming with its involvement in the subsidiaries, documenting them is of value to anyone who might wish to know if they should invest, divest, apply for a job, purchase services, or as a reference to the history of the hosting industry of which this company is an important part due to how many brands it holds and the relative size of them compared to the rest of the industry. In short, it is information of consequence and should be documented. The only thing that is worthy of debate is sources and formatting. Defendermaxim (talk) 10:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC) It seems as if the inclusion of the brands list has been resolved? For balance I wonder whether it would be appropriate to add an external link to this page (which still contains it): http://researchasahobby.com/full-list-eig-hosting-companies-brands/ It seems that providing an external link to EIG's own site would be more properly balanced by adding an external link to that site which does contain the brand information which web customer's who want to avoid EIG subsiduaries may find useful. Slipandslide (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Why not use U.S._Securities_and_Exchange_Commission filing data, that is legal proof of ownership, third party websites should not be considered. Mjp1976 (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mjp1976 I assume you meant to link here: https://secsearch.sec.gov rather than to a Wikipedia page about the SEC. It would be ideal if there were a page there that we could link to that listed all the hosting companies that EIG owns. Until someone finds one there however, I believe we should offer the best available source which seems to be the site I offered above. EIG seems to have tainted the hosting recommendation process at Wordpress.org and people who want to avoid all EIG companies when buying hosting should be able to find that information easily. What are you basing the statement that 3rd party sites should not be considered on? I see that whole section has been added back in to the main article so this may be moot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slipandslide (talk • contribs) 14:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Controversy
Request review & remove (or re-write) of rambling "Controversy" section. Mostly based on non-Neutral POV. Could have truth, but not a proper edit when done/worded this way. Not really even a "Controversy", seems more business practices/ethics related.72.234.220.38 (talk) 22:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * mostly, no. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  10:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Owner of a rogue domain name reseller
Why is a report referenced by an expert monitoring service, LegitScript, removed (here with here}? LegitScript assists Google, Bing, Visa, and other partners to let them know which Internet pharmacy merchants are legitimate and which are not in 19 countries...and Yahoo (Paragraph two). The source states and all these entities accept the assistance of the analysis and interpretation as legitimate, not as being unreliable. Furthermore, wikipedia guidelines state: "...expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". LegitScript is used by the before mentioned enties (and more) and has been published by third-party publications (e.g. Wall Street Journeal, CNBC.com, Indianapolis Star‎, Network Wold, PCWorld‎) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nodove (talk • contribs)
 * Recommend you ask on the Reliable Source Noticeboard and see what they say.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 21:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Company Structure
Added a section on the company's structure and how it has grown through multiple acquisitions. Brought back in data on its acquired brands that had been removed by prior edits. This data is re-formatted so it may now please those who didn't want "a list". More references have been added though more should be found. The company does not make this easy, as they don't list all their brands and also, some acquisitions are not big enough news to make it to "mainstream" publications. Several sources are "primary" not "secondary".

This is an attempt at keeping the valuable reference material in our encyclopedia and trying to reach a middle-ground with others who felt the large list section may have been too much. This is a good-faith edit (as one should assume most are according to Wikipedia tradition & policy). I'm trying not to do any sort of edit-war or annoy others, just replacing information of value that was removed and enhancing the article at the same time. I have zero POV in any way on this company, I, and I think others also, do find its growth plan interesting in comparison to other hosting companies, and historically as it mirrors a few other internet companies' strategies. Discussions about policy/problems/etc. of this edit/article should take place here on the talk page before any reverts or undos. Any further stalemates should immediately go to a Wikipedia mediation process rather than devolve into the past undo/restore waste of time.

This article, like so many others, is far from perfect. But one would hope no one will go against policy & civility and throw the baby out with the bathwater rather than work to improve it. — 72.234.220.38 (talk) 09:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You need to provide third party reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  10:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe you didn't see the edit-conflicts? By coincidence, I was working on it and adding third party reliable sources to other editors' data at the time you started editing.  Once done, next step should be to remove all primary references, no? — 72.234.220.38 (talk) 11:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * you are not adding third party reliable sources. please review the policies. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  11:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not? NASDAQ article from Investor's Business Daily not reliable?  The Better Business Bureau not reliable?  Edgar filings at sec.gov not reliable?  Perhaps you don't know about places like Seeking Alpha, a long running investment research website?  But you must know eWeek.com? — 72.234.220.38 (talk) 11:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You are correct, a Nasdaq blog with the disclaimer on the bottom stating they do not stand behind the content is not a reliable source. You are correct the BBB being used in the manner you are using it is not an appropriate source. And you are also correct that utilizing SEC filings is a primary source that is not appropriate for Wikipedia use. Thank you. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You have a lot of work to do on Wikipedia references then. Please do some searching on the use of SEC filings as sources. Removing those will keep one quite busy.  Falsifying or giving "unreliable" filings to the SEC is not something most corporations are seen to do.  Also, the Nasdaq page has a standard disclaimer, "The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc.".  It is also not a "blog", it is quite a well known investor news source.  It in fact is, with permission, reprinting an article from Investor's Business Daily.  If you don't find them reliable, please edit their own Wikipedia article to state this (with reliable sources of course).  The Better Business Bureau is not a reliable place for information either?  I've seen more than one Wikipedia article removed due to the data sourced at the BBB site.  Please show me some Wikipedia policy pages to back up your statements, I'd love to see where you get your notions and am always willing to learn. — 72.234.220.38 (talk) 12:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Writing for the encyclopedia Wikipedia is different than writing your blog or thesis paper. We only take into account what other reliably published sources have said about the subject. We do not go digging for original filings such as SEC docs. We merely compile what the reliably published sources have already stated about the organization. Please read WP:PSTS. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Questions of source reliability should be taken to the reliable source noticeboard. Blogs are not generally considered reliable. Neither are pay-for-publish sites like TheWhir.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 19:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems, from "all" that I've read in the "Talk" page about EIG, that there has been no input from Web development professionals. I apologize if any of the previous are, in fact, professionals in the Web development industry. But it would seem none are in the industry since none have approached their responses from the aspect of why the information (negative or positive) is important. It's extremely important for Web developers to know the good companies from the bad in order to provide professional assistance to our clients. To be clear, I've been developing Web sites for more than 15 years professionally. I started dabbling in 1996. I began reselling hosting packages in 2000, but stopped in 2013. You can check the dates of when HostGator sold to EIG in order to understand the significance of that year - 2013. When I initially read the post on Wikipedia about EIG, I was extremely happy to see that there "were" facts and a list of companies owned by EIG. The list alone provided in-depth information for me. At my initial review, the facts that I wanted were the sale date of HostGator, to what company, and what "other" hosting companies the buyer already owned. I know what a "quality" hosting company must have. I also know what was lost after the HostGator sale. Knowing that information and reviewing the list of EIG companies made my research much less complicated. I come to Wikipedia for a wealth of information when researching information, usually about hosting or Web development issues. "Facts" - that's all I want. If there are nothing but facts about EIG, I don't want to hear anybody defending why someone has removed those facts. I don't want to see this fruitless arguing over the facts - and I have no desire to be quoted references which debate what is or is not a fact. People come to Wikipedia for facts. If a post has facts, leave it alone. If a post has any fact that is removed, regardless of the reason, put it back. If there are facts that put a business under scrutiny, then that business needs to reconsider its ethics and business model. It's a fact that Brent Oxley ran a highly professional, ethical, honest business - and made that business extremely profitable. Make a profit on underhanded tricks, bait-and-switch, or simply lying is not what I would consider a professional business. But that's my "opinion" and has no business being posted in Wikipedia as a "fact". Due to the facts I found when researching EIG in 2013, regardless of how the facts were viewed, allowed me to scour the Net and find another business like what Brent Oxley sold. And if there was information that was not factual, it didn't matter to me at the time since I only wanted specific facts - and I found them. My current host is not part of the EIG network. Facts "must" include the number of times, dates and periods of outages a company experiences - even if they were only a handful of sites. Again, regardless of the negative impact on the company, factual information needs to be available. The public has the right to know the facts. And, again, any company with issues has every opportunity to repair its infrastructure as well as ethics. If the company chooses to continue its current practices that are questionable, the public has the right to know. Just because a business has poor practices does not give it the right to "hide" that information. Every business has a right to conduct business as it sees fit. Every person has the right to full disclosure. Wikipedia is and has always been a source that posts full disclosure, as long as the information is factual. Instead of removing "any" negative information about EIG, how about posting what positive action(s) was (were) taken to rectify any issue(s)? Therein lies the conundrum for EIG. As long as the information posted is factual, leave it alone. Stop arguing. Who cares about policy and whether a business finds negative information about their company? If it's fact, it stays.LTCreations (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit Request - Add protection icon
Requesting a protection icon be added to the page.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 19:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 23:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit Request - Add Semi Protection Icon
Reason for requesting semi protection on this article is due to the previous edit warring. This will eliminate anonymous users and new users from coming in and making arbitrary edits. It is my belief, that keeping semi protection on this article for the next while (indefinitely), will ensure that those that edit will come up with valid sources of information based when making edits. Mjp1976 (talk) 01:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * ❌ requests for page protection must be made at WP:Requests for page protection - Arjayay (talk) 11:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit Request - Status Quo
Requesting that the page be reverted to the WP:STATUSQUO/WP:CONSENSUS state prior to the edit warring by the IP/SPA user. Pre-edit war version is here. I normally would request this, but this user (1) went way beyond 3RR and (2) is acting in questionable to bad faith. They expressed intent to push their edits here despite multiple experienced editors opposition (see talk page above and article edit history). Pinging, admin who protected page.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 19:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done I've reverted, but for what it's worth, I think there is room in the article for the IP's material. It just needs to have the list of acquisitions trimmed down to the very biggest ones, and to be sourced to sources that pass the reliable sources guideline. (Also, registering an account will help.) — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 23:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you look at the article history, you will find that they have ground through a half dozen or more accounts in the past six months or so pushing the same content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with some listed. Notable ones.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 01:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Subsidiary list
With the recent (re)addition of the Subsidiary List, I added the references and the original formatting. I would welcome suggestions for criteria to use to trim this list down, and will attempt to find sources for the size of their various subsidiaries, but I suspect that will prove difficult. I would welcome any help in this area.

I have read through the talk page and looked extensively at the edit history and I do not believe there is any consensus on whether this information should be included or not, but there are many strong feelings in both directions.

My own belief is that this information is neutral (in that it is neither advertising for or against EIG) and relevant to any article on EIG given the nature and scope of their business. LloydSommerer (talk) 03:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree. The information is itself neutral and not marketing. It is also, in my opinion, relevant to understanding a corporation that seems to grow through consolidating acquisitions. I have followed the discussion. --Cantabwarrior (talk) 17:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * It may help knowing that many in the hosting business (and I am part of those many) find it critical to know if a hosting company is or is not part of EIG when selecting a new provider. Mostly it comes down to the quality of service and support that have suffered in several cases after a provider was acquired by EIG, but the list does not necessarily end there. The web page As Full As Possible List of EIG Companies and Brands With Details offers some insight into this view. Afrachel (talk) 00:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually, no. It doesn't help to know that. It doesn't matter at all what the list is used for. It only matters that it is factual, referenced and relevant to the article. In fact, one of the reasons that it has been removed in the past is that people said that it needs to be included so that people can avoid EIG brands. This is in no case true. Whether or not they are good brands is completely beside the point, and has absolutely no bearing on their inclusion in the article. LloydSommerer (talk) 01:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * You lost me there. Are you saying the list should or should not be included in the EIG page? Afrachel (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

This section could be easily improved in both accuracy and quality. I've done a fair amount of my own research to come up with a better list of EIG owned companies. Dollar2Host and MyResellerHome do not belong to EIG. 2slick and SoutheastWebGroup likely don't belong to EIG either. The As Full As Possible List of EIG Companies and Brands With Details page is relatively accurate, but it has errors and many of the sources are low quality. I'm not going to link to my own work in the actual article, but my own research is available here and nearly always relies on publicly available material found either on EIG's website or the websites of EIG subsidiaries. Since I have a conflict of interest here, another editor can decide whether my work or findings merit an update to this page. ChrisSmith1494 (talk) 22:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Draft for review
Hello, my name is Melanie and I am here on Wikipedia as an employee and representative of Endurance International Group to offer suggestions for the company's article. The current article does not provide a complete summary of the company's services and history, so I've proposed a "Corporate overview" section with services, office locations, and affiliated brands and businesses. The current "Subsidiary brands" section points to many unreliable sources and dead URLs, so I have drafted a complete, accurate, and properly sourced version to improve the article. Finally, the proposed draft provides a more thorough overview of the company's history and its acquisitions.

More generally, I've worked to improve the article's flow and organization, and I believe it is written in a very matter-of-fact, neutral tone. As I've noted at the top of this page, I will refrain from editing the article directly because of my conflict of interest. I've saved a proposed draft at a subpage of my user space: User:Melanie from Endurance/Endurance International Group.

I am hoping to find an unbiased community volunteer who will implement the draft as appropriate. I am open to splitting this edit request into multiple requests if working through the article section by section is preferred. I am also happy to answer any questions you may have here or on my user talk page. Thank you for your consideration and help in advance. Melanie from Endurance (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I have posted requests at

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wiki Project_Companies&diff=prev&oldid=743070708 WikiProject Companies], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wiki Project_Internet&diff=prev&oldid=744810261 WikiProject Internet], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wiki Project_Massachusetts&diff=prev&oldid=744810509 WikiProject Massachusetts], but no editors have responded. I see that you all have edited the article in the past. I wonder if one of you might be willing to review the proposed draft and implement as appropriate? Thank you for any help in advance. Melanie from Endurance (talk) 15:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi there. It is generally not recommended to propose major rewrites to an article in which you have a conflict of interest, see WP:COI. If you wish the information to be updated, you need to split your draft proposal into what information needs to be added/updated (including relevant citations), and the information that should be removed (giving an appropriate reason and references to reliable sources), not rewrite the whole article and expected the current article to be replaced. You should look at Template:Request_edit/Instructions for guidance. Request declined. Regards, VB00 (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * However, I think it is important to recognise that someone with a self-stated COI shouldn't be dissuaded from input into the article in this way, not when they are obviously cognizant of the possible complications that might produce and have approached other editors to assess their proposed changes. Individuals that are close to an article subject can often bring a valuable knowledge that can lead to improvement of the article, provided that changes comply with WP:NPOV. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 16:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for replying. I was hoping a neutral editor would be willing to review the proposed draft, which is accurate, neutral, and a major improvement to the current article, in its entirety, but I am happy to submit a series of edit requests for each section to make the review process easier. Thanks to you as well for recognizing that I am just trying to improve the existing article by seeking help from editors reviewing my proposed draft. I will be submitting a series of additional edit requests, which I hope you will consider reviewing. Melanie from Endurance (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit request to update the "Corporate structure"
On behalf of Endurance, I have returned (see above section) with a more specific edit request. As seen at User:Melanie from Endurance/Endurance International Group, I propose replacing the current article's "Company structure" section with the proposed "Corporate overview" section, which provides an accurate, neutral overview of the company and its services, office locations, and affiliated brands and businesses.

As I mentioned before, the current "Subsidiary brands" subsection points to many unreliable sources and dead URLs, so I have drafted a complete and properly sourced version to improve the article. Is there an editor who will review the below text and copy over to the article as appropriate? I've provided markup below. I am pinging both of you in case you wish to review based on the above discussion.

Thanks, and do let me know if you have any questions. Melanie from Endurance (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll wait for the opinions of other editors, however, the insertion of the list into the article seemed very controversial in the first place (see talk page discussion above). Wikipedia is not a directory, and simple listings are not welcome. If an acquisition is truly notable, it should be included in the timeline (which does describe some notable investments). I have looked over several of the featured company articles (of which there aren't many), and none of them seem to contain lists of affiliated brands/something similar. Regards, VB00 (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Though the subsidiary list is already in the article. If it is to stay there, it makes sense for it to be accurate and properly referenced. However, the question is whether it should remain in that form, be removed or be converted to prose (the latter normally recommended)? Are there any specific guidelines on this issue, further to the general WP:NOTDIRECTORY (which advises against lists of business alliances)? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for responding. I have read all of the above discussion and recognize the sensitivities around including this list. However, I see more arguments in favor of its inclusion, not its elimination. The following editors all supported including this content: User:Scoundr3l, User:Mjp1976, User:Jkfkauia, User:CmdrSharp, User:Slipandslide, and User:Lsommerer. The arguments they raised were that the information presented in the list is neutral and informative. User:EvergreenFir objected to the list's inclusion, but based on the article's size. I can see this argument being used for the current article (or previous versions), but not when looking at the proposed draft in its entirety. Here, noting affiliated brands and businesses seems appropriate when providing a corporate overview. User:NorthBySouthBaranof wants to make sure entries are appropriately sourced, and I believe the proposed "Corporate overview" section is sourced appropriately. Yes, a couple of editors have pointed to WP:NOTDIRECTORY to support the list's removal, but this argument has been shot down by other editors, and more have expressed support for the list's inclusion. I have "pinged" users throughout this post and hope they will return to continue this conversation. I also hope that—if there's agreement this information can be included—there is an editor who would be willing to copy the markup provided within this edit request over to the article. Finally, I am leaving my current role and will no longer be the representative for Endurance on Wikipedia. Please do keep this request under consideration as one of my colleagues will be picking up this work in my place, so expect to see a new account created and COI notice posted above. Melanie from Endurance (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My reason for wanting this list included stems from the fact that every other corporation on wikipedia has their Subsidiaries listed. Look at just these three corporations: Sears Holdings, GE, and Amazon.com. So why is it that for this one corporation we can not do the same? The Information for all these subsidiaries can be found on EIG's SEC Filings. Mjp1976 (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi there. Just because something has been mentioned elsewhere on Wikipedia does not mean that it should be included (you may wish to read Other_stuff_exists for more info). Inclusion is based purely on consensus in the current article, not in some others. In response to User:Melanie from Endurance's comment - A consensus is not a vote, nor is it permanent (you may wish to look over the explanation of consensus at What_is_consensus%3F). Just because the majority has voted for the list's inclusion does not mean that it was actually consensus. Wikipedians like to use the term !votes (not votes) to remind others that consensus should be determined by the arguments that editors bring, and not by a voting system. As such, pointing to relevant guidelines that do support the list's removal is indeed considered better than expressing personal opinions and such (which does not necessarily mean that the list needs to be removed, but does mean that consensus needs to be determined again on whether the list should be updated, or removed). Regards, VB00 (talk) 07:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I am for verifiable facts to be put in the article. The facts I state are able to be verified in the SEC filings by EIG. These are not a point of contention, or a point of discussion, To omit facts about the company would violate the Wikimedia Foundation's mission statement to "... to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally." Providing facts about a company would be educational. If you like or dislike the company that is neither here nor there. This is about the facts that are available. You can find a complete list in the multiple SEC filings that the company has made. If that data is not good enough, It must be stated that filing False SEC filings is a serious offence. No reputable company would do such thing. I am not for using some website that lists the subsidiaries that are used to bash the company. I am for official verifiable data posted in SEC filings. Verifiable Facts should not be in dispute. Mjp1976 (talk) 03:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I seem to be confused about one thing - are you just an editor working on an article, a reviewer or the new representative that Melanie mentioned? It would be helpful (especially for me) to make it more clear. Now, I see that you have said that "verifiable facts should not be in dispute" - that is not true, and that is not how Wikipedia works. Just because something is verifiable does not mean that it should be included - you may wish to review What_Wikipedia_is_not. What I'm concerned about is the weight that the list is given within the article - it takes up about half the article. This is not a list article, and I'm sure that you have seen the issue being raised in the past. Now, onto the last interesting comment that I saw: "If you like or dislike a company, that is neither here nor there" - Please assume good faith. I find your accusations quite random, and I did not know what the Endurance Group was until reviewing the edit request. Hopefully this has cleared some things up. Regards, VB00 (talk) 05:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If the number of subsidaries takes up too much space on the main page, would not making a summery page be more appropriate? If that would lighten the "weight" of the page, that would be an option. Many of the Brands do have their own notability, however they don't require their own page for each brand. A summery page of the brands could suffice. What do you think of the option of a summery page and link off the main article? I am not affiliated with EIG. I do apologize for not assume good faith. There has been many edits wars on this article. Mjp1976 (talk) 06:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I don't have sufficient experience in such matters, so I'd recommend that you ask someone else. If you are willing to create the list, perhaps pass it through AfC first? Regards, VB00 (talk) 13:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As this edit request has received extensive feedback, I am marking it as answered to remove it from the backlog. Altamel (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

April 2014 network issue
I removed the following section from the article since it had been flagged as irrelevant for nearly two years. I'm outside my area of expertise, but happened accross this article, and this felt very much out of place. This wasn't a significant enough event to make major news sources and it isn't apparent that it has had long-term impact on the company, so I don't find it notable enough for inclusion in this article. I welcome opinions from others. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 22:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC) In April 2014, a major network issue at the data center in Provo, Utah, affected customers of Bluehost, HostMonster and JustHost, and took down many of the dedicated servers owned by HostGator customers.

Update to Newfold Digital
After acquiring Web.com in 2021, it seems Endurance International Group was rebranded to Newfold Digital by its parent. It was reported on by a handful of tech-biz-oriented outlets. Thanks. - 71.209.163.100 (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Inaccuracies and Issues With This Article
First off, I would like to acknowledge that I am an employee of Newfold Digital, as disclosed in my profile. I have been working with editors I connected with on the Teahouse to create a new article draft for Newfold Digital. A major impetus for this was the issues with this article. The first is that Endurance International Group no longer exists. It was merged with Web.com Group to form Newfold Digital. This page was previously renamed to Newfold Digital, but that wasn't a good solution, because Newfold Digital is not just a continuation of EIG, nor did it solely originate from EIG. It is a new company, formed by the merger of EIG holdings with Web.com Group holdings, and this new company has since acquired several other companies. Rather than extensively editing and renaming this article, I propose leaving it as a historical record and moving forward with Newfold Digital, to simplify things and create a better and clearer experience for the interested reader.

There has been some confusion about why there should be a Newfold Digital article when this article already exists, and I am leaving this comment for any editor who happens to take a look, so they can get some idea of the problems with this article. Here are the issues as I see them:

1) The aforementioned issue of Newfold Digital vs. EIG. EIG no longer exists, but this article mentions several of the brands owned by Newfold Digital as if they were owned by EIG, including some brands that were acquired by Newfold Digital after EIG ceased to exist. This is factually inaccurate.

2) This article probably should not be simply renamed to Newfold Digital, because Newfold Digital is not solely comprised of former EIG holdings.

3) This article suffers from WP:PROSELINE. Newfold Digital was written to avoid this problem and provide simple, clear information about the parent company of these brands for the interested reader.

4) The basic company information in the article is inaccurate and muddled because of confusion between the former company and the new company. The new article would rectify this issue, and this article could link to the new article for clarity's sake.

5) Some of the content is not sourced properly. As an example, consider, "The CEO and all but one "C-level" officers from Web.com were retained after the merger, although EIG was much larger than Web.com." The source for this links to the Newfold Digital leadership page, but this page does not include any information on the size of EIG relative to Web.com. The following line is not sourced at all and appears to be speculative: "Web.com's strategy, like EIG's, was to grow through acquiring brands which they continued to operate, although they generally did not relocate the infrastructure of their acquired brands."

---

I have zero interest in using Wikipedia as a marketing tool for Newfold Digital. But I do want to see accurate, up-to-date information included on Wikipedia, and I believe that having inaccurate, outdated information live, such as this article, is detrimental to Wikipedia. To this end, I am looking for assistance with Newfold Digital, to hopefully get it approved, so that this article can be updated and linked to the new article, resolving many of the aforementioned problems. Zach at Newfold (talk) 18:49, 28 December 2022 (UTC)


 * @S0091 left a recent comment on your draft at Draft:Newfold Digital. I'd suggest using AFC's back and forth process to polish that draft and eventually get it accepted (if it meets our criteria, not all drafts do). The ability to "submit" AFC drafts into the queue will ensure you get responses and feedback. A complex talk page comment like this one, while appreciated, is less likely to generate action. – Novem Linguae (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Novem Linguae That makes perfect sense. Thank you for the suggestion/direction; that's the course I'll pursue! Zach at Newfold (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Rename to Newfold Digital?
That's been the name for a few years now. Any reason not to rename the page? John_Abbe (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)