Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angelfire


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was Keep--JForget 23:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Angelfire

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Lack of verificable sources means that this web host fails notability guidelines, suggesting that this article serves only as a spammy link to the company's own website. --Gavin Collins 11:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions.  -- Gavin Collins 11:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. More sources wouldn't hurt, but this is a significant and historically important company and site. The tone of the article is generally neutral and I see no basis for the allegation of spamminess. Newyorkbrad 12:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Extremely important in the history of free web hosting.  The site's Alexa rank peaked in the ~200 range close to the start of Alexa ranking; it probably would have been higher prior to that.  Article needs tagging as OR, but should be fixed rather than deleted. JulesH 12:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 *  Weak Keep. It's hard to search for sources due to the generic name, but I find it hard to believe that Angelfire will have no sources about it. It is mentioned here, here, here, here, here, here, here and mispelt twice here and here. None of them are great sources though, despite their obvious reliability. That was just from searching the NYTimes archive- I will search through some other papers after my lunch. J Milburn 12:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Further sources from The Guardian- search results- not all are relevent, some are just links, but you get the picture. The mainstream press mention this site a lot, I don't think there is any real doubt they are notable. J Milburn 12:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep--Rudjek 12:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per all above. Oh dear, they seem to have succeeded so well in shedding their crusty dot com image that wikipedia thinks it's just another dime-a-dozen Two Point Oh Zero wannabe --Victor falk 13:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per everyone above as highly notable from an historical perspective. The article is not without problems, but deletion is not the solution to that problem. -- Mike (Kicking222) 14:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: very notable early company. How can this even get to AfD? CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This should have been speedy closed when it was open. Sometimes notability is so obvious that we don't need to sit through AfD to prove it. Smashville 16:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Error Maybe? - Flubeca Talk 23:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nominator has a history of starting or supporting deletions entirely on the basis of what they're like at that present moment. As this discussion demonstrates, patience and discretion have their place and using reason is allowed. AfDs are a non-trivial drain in both time and effort, encourage divisions in the community and, I think, are among the more significant causes of editor attrition. They should not be used as a first resort - particularily not when finding better sources turned out to be a trivial effort! --Kizor 03:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and comment--there should be a more direct way to improving articles. One way that might work, even with the existing structure, is WP:PROD--if people look there regularly and select articles to improve. DGG (talk) 05:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep; notable as (one of) the first free hosting providers, but definitely could use some references. Percy Snoodle 14:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems notable enough for me. Captain   panda  20:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The article could be improved or made better, but deleting will not do this. The current version is better than no article at all, so my vote goes to keeping it. 213.84.102.38 20:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.