Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fasthosts


 * 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 of the debate was Delete. HappyCamper 17:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Fasthosts
Another non-notable dotcom registrar. Delete Ardenn 15:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as NN adspam. RGTraynor 16:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per RGTraynor. Grafikm_fr 16:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete advertising. The JPS 17:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * comment The info in the article is not entirely positive. Can someone ellaborate more on non-notability here?  e.g. give some interpretation to the Alexa results for this? -MrFizyx 17:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. That's not a bad Alexa ranking by any means, but that's like saying the outfit that makes the silicon for a number of computers is "notable," a word a lot of Wikipedia editors seem to feel is synonymous with "ubiquitous."  Everyone's site is hosted by someone.  I'd recommend taking a peek at WP:CORP.  RGTraynor 18:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Why is this article any worse than Bravenet Web Services, DreamHost, EuroVPS, Metawire, or NexGen Internet Services? It is not obvious that these are any more or less notable than Fasthosts.  -MrFizyx 19:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not a reason to keep it. They may very well end up on vfd. Ardenn 19:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Some of them have already survived vfd--but I hope you bring them up again. I agree with you!  Delete. -MrFizyx 20:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - nn.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 03:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Netcraft says they're the largest website host in the UK. Google News hits suggest at least some notability. Fagstein 06:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. They're more than a registrar, they're a large web host/ISP. The article includes non-positive information so to describe it as advertising suggests Ardenn hasn't actually read the text of the page. Many other commercial organisations have Wikipedia pages, particularly when they have a controversial or interesting history. MattRevell 08:55, 21 April 2006 (BST)
 * That's not an excuse to keep them. Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, or webspace provider. Ardenn 16:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I also looked at the articles on Google. I felt these were just repeated copies of press releases issued by the company.  Also, WebFusion Webhosting.info suggests that they may not be the UK's largest, but instead come in third.  (original source)  It really comes down to how many companies like this you think we should have on Wikipedia.  It is no wonder that debates on similar companies (see above) have tended to end in "no consensus." -MrFizyx 14:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a notable company with an interesting history. The fact that they come up 3rd on Google for "web host" suggests that they're a big host and are probably doing something right. Netcraft's recent figures say they're the world's largest Windows 2003 web host. --Wilbowonka 21:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This user only began editing yesterday, and has less than 8 edits. Ardenn 21:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:V. Ardenn 21:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete adspam -- Tawker 21:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: attempts here at notability are large stretches at best. Really nothing more than a nn advertisement. --Hetar 05:08, 25 April 2006 (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.