Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hurricane Electric


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Hurricane Electric

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  Cliff  Smith 16:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  Cliff  Smith 16:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  Cliff  Smith 16:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Jgeddis (talk) 10:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The article fails the Notability requirements outlined in Notability_(organizations_and_companies) in numerous categories. Namely, the "independence of sources", "depth of coverage", "audience" categories. For example, most of the "sources" linked in this article are self published or reprints of marketing materials generated by HE. Blogs by employees have been routinely cited in this article and they are specifically prohibited by wikipedia. The list of public free peering points is not considered a "source" by any wikipedia standard. If someone would like to create an article about free public peering points that may be a valid article. However, using free public peering points (which anyone with an internet connection in a colo can connect to for free) to establish the notability of this tiny organization with no global impact is not valid. as far as primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Not one single "News Organization" is, nor has it ever been, cited in this article. This article has existed for 2 years now. The fact that no one has ever come up with a single article by an acceptable news organization (even a local one where this company has their one rented facility) is a testament to the lack of this organizations notability.


 * The article has always read like an advertisement. A brief review of it's edit history over the last 2 years would show that it has been repeatedly had to have all it's spamvertizing cleaned out.


 * As this article stands today, even with all the attention from the deletion nomination it contains in total a single paragraph and a list of free public peering points. There is no useful content in this article. Again, if someone would like to create an article on peering points, they should do that. Because that list makes up 95% of this "article".

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgeddis (talk • contribs)
 * Hurricane electric has no network. All they do is peer at public exchanges in shared data centres. They have no backbone and wouldn't even be rated on any level of the Carrier Tier system. They are a 1 building colo provider who lease extremely limited space in other company's data centers yet this article blows them up to be some massive global carrier. In fact, i couldn't verify a single peering point or facility that this organization actually owns. It's totally (and I'd argue intentionally) misleading. Not a single Tier 1 or Tier 2 provider uses Hurricane electric for transit or transport.
 * There is no possible hope any of these issues will be resolved because no wilipedia approved sources exist to establish HE's notability. In two years of a few people editing this article not a single source has been provided that meets wikipedia's guidlines outlined in RS has ever been brought forth. Indeed, only sources that are specifically prohibited by wikipedia have ever been cited in this article.


 * Improve and keep HE is a well-known ISP, well-known in the trade for its position as the centre of the IPv6 peering universe, and they get plenty of trade press coverage: see, for example, the following non-press-release-driven stories: -- "Global IPv6 leader Hurricane Electric claims the top spot as the biggest IPv6 provider to African ISPs."   -- "Hurricane Electric, arguably the world's largest IPv6-native Internet backbone and co-location provider,"   -- "Hurricane Electric's role in pushing IPv6 traffic is being noticed across the Internet. Arbor Networks said in a blog post that Hurricane Electric's free tunnel broker introduced in April was one of the main reasons that global IPv6 traffic grew more than 1,400% from September 2008 to September 2009."   -- " In particular, Hurricane Electric (AS6939) maintains a commanding lead over its nearest competitors in the IPv6 world."   -- "Nation's largest IPv6 network welcomes rivals" ... "Little-known Hurricane Electric, the nation's leading provider of IPv6 services"  Also (and yes, this one's from a press release: I'm not citing this as a RS) if they have no network, what do you think they're doing with all this 10G layer 1 transmission kit?   Having said which, the article needs to be significantly improved from its current state, to be based as much as possible on reliable sources such as the above. -- The Anome (talk) 12:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Well known ISP is opinion, not fact. Further they are not an ISP.
 * your first link is not a usable source
 * your second link is BLATANTLY self published material.
 * you've already disqualified your third link by labeling it a blog. further, if you actually read it it clearly says it's regurgitating "Hurricane Electric claims to be No. 1"
 * your fourth link is another blog
 * your 5th link, funny enough, in your quote refutes your opening statement "little known hurricane electric" thanks for supporting the notability question in this nomination.
 * your 6th link, read the actual press release "optical transport solution to significantly expand its network in California." They are using that no namer gear on LEASED dark fibre METRO (read LOCAL) links between their 3 leased facilities. having local metro links between your facilities does not count as a backbone and you know that. Backbones are at minimum interstate. This doesn't even leave the city of fremont. Are you purposely being misleading?
 * your last point, no the table does not belong there at all. Once you remove it, what are you left with? You're left with 2 paragraphs that are 100% sourced from self published material. Further, how many times has the conversation of it requiring "massive cleanup" been raised over the last two years? In that two years what have anyone produced of substance? The reason this article and this company has been suffering from a lack of sources for over two years is because there aren't any. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgeddis (talk • contribs) 12:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * To address this point by point:By definition, they are an ISP. They peer with other ISPs using BGP, and sell IP transit service to others. How their infrastructure is constructed, both technically and commercially, is irrelevant to this point. Denying this undercuts your other arguments.mybroadband.co.za meets all the criteria for a WP:RSThe second link's opinions expand upon the press release it reports, in the editorial voice of ZDNet, a WP:RS; the opinions are Vaughan-Nichols', not HE'sNetwork World is a well-known RS. The report cites a blog, but it is speaking in Network World's authorial voice. Moreover, Arbor Networks is a well known organization known to be impartial in the field on which it's commenting.Renesys are a well-known authority in their area, and independent of HE.Yes, HE are "little known" to the general public. However, the article (again, from Network World, a WP:RS) considers them noteworthy within the industry: the article is all about their prominence in their field.Are you really saying that you only "have a network" if you wholly own the fibre it's running on? By that token, many ISPs do not have a "network" in that sense, relying on leased fibre, L1 transmssion, and even L2 services from telcos. Are you saying that this does not exist, or is not a "network"?Once you remove the table, you have a stub article about an important niche player in the ISP business. By the way, although I have a background in the industry (as it appears, do you) I am not affiliated with HE, nor do I have any business relationship with them or any stock position relating to them. Do you have some sort of personal stake in this matter? -- The Anome (talk) 13:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Improve and keep Hurricane Electric is a major international backbone/wholesale capacity ISP and has routers/equipment present at nearly all of the major internet exchange points in the world. The sheer scale of their network and number of BGP sessions with other ASNs (and ASN number below 10000) make them notable.  Take a look at: http://www.fixedorbit.com/AS/6/AS6939.htm  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.185.44 (talk) 02:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC) — 76.10.185.44 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete Inconsequential colo with no coverage - fails notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.111.160.20 (talk) 22:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC) — 64.111.160.20 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete Fails notability requirements — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.110.88.194 (talk) 22:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC) — 216.110.88.194 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Improve and keep - I see many talking about HE's IPv6 tunneling. A large ISP like this deserves at least a stub.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - the references highlighted above by The Anome show notability of this company. The counter-arguments presented by the nominator are unconvincing, and were aptly and successfully refuted.  -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration)  09:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, i tried to find references a while back, but i remember reading that they were in the vanguard of IPV6. that seems very important. NO coi.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:31, 9 August 2012 (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.