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


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

OVH
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Still not notable. From Notability: # "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Delete Me-123567-Me (talk) 05:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - OVH is mentioned in every newspaper's reports of Wikileaks developments (quite apart from it being a significant French internet company anyway). --Mervyn (talk) 10:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Just looked it up on Wikipedia and found this page, so I guess it's notable. ¦ Reisio (talk) 11:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Reisio, that's the most circular argument I've ever heard! SmartSE (talk) 12:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep This provides significant coverage of the company and other sources show this is not a one-off occurence, demonstrating coverage in multiple sources. The GNG and WP:CORP are met. SmartSE (talk) 12:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Here are more sources providing more than passing mentions of OVH:   SmartSE (talk) 11:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: if the coverage is solely about hosting WikiLeaks, that merits only a mention at WikiLeaks, not a full entry. Hairhorn (talk) 20:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but the company is notable enough by itself to have an article about it. SmartSE (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't get it... you agree, but you don't agree? Notability is based on sources, if there are no sources, notability is hard to come by. (... but if everyone agrees it's notable, then that pretty much settles it, there are no delete votes yet). Hairhorn (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep OVH is one of the biggest Webhosts in Europe and the biggest one in France (Too bad this can only be confirmed from netcraft analysis), in 2009 they placed a bid on german webhosting company Strato (that should be a good hint on their size) and last and least there is this Wikileaks thing that's all over the international press. --Mastacheata (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The article also needs more reliable third party sources. The only ones that qualify are for the Wikileaks things. Blogs and forums are unacceptable. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per SmartSE. I speculate this deletion proposal is stems in part from it being a French company.--Sum (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, great work assuming good faith. It was nominated for deletion because it had been previously deleted, and had no sources. It's not my job to find those sources. Remember, if something is challenged and no sources turned up the challenged material must be removed. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not necessarely a bad faith nomination, and I assume it isn't, it may be just little known to US people. See Template:Globalize/USA.--Sum (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. I was the original author of this page before it's first deletion, nominated on the same grounds by the same user. It's worth pointing out that OVH don't sell to North America, only a handul of European countries - so there's little coverage of it in US media. However, at least one source points to it being one of the largest web hosting providers in the world. As a larger firm than, say, 1&1, I think that makes it more notable than 1&1, not to mention a low number of sources not strictly being grounds for deletion. Though a Google news search for "OVH" shows more than 7 pages, including Gizmodo calling it the second biggest ISP in Europe. --Razakel19 (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep notable as a major company, quite apart from anything to do with wikileaks.    DGG ( talk ) 22:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

"All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research, but in practice not everything need actually be attributed. This policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source…"" Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. "Sixth largest host of servers on the internet and largest in Europe" makes it quite obviously notable. Besides, plenty of sources are quite easy to come by, even on the internet, if you can read French. Shreevatsa (talk) 13:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't read french. Nor am I required to. It's English Wikipedia. WP:ENGLISH. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * From your OWN user page: "* Verifiability, not truth. This is the only way the project can work. But note that having footnotes is not a goal in itself:
 * Eh? Besides the obvious argument for notability, I was only (secondarily) adding that there are plenty of reliable, third-party sources on the topic that demonstrate notability, most of which happen to be in the French language. WP:ENGLISH is about what we should write in; there's no requirement that sources be in English (or online). (See WP:NONENG: "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, unless no English sources of equal quality and relevance are available…" etc.) Anyway, this is my last message here; no point discussing notability further. Shreevatsa (talk) 18:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That doesn't mean we can't use foreign sources, in fact we must use foreign sources if we are ever to get anywhere near finishing the project. Try using google translate if you can't read a language, it's not really good enough to write articles from, but you can clearly tell that the sources I listed demonstrate notability. SmartSE (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2010 (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.