Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peering.cz


 * 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. ‑Scottywong | spill the beans _ 16:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Peering.cz

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject fails WP:NCORP (no independent proof it's the largest exchange in Central Europe, if that even matters) as well as WP:GNG. All I could find independent of the subject was promotional junk like this. Sources like the e15.cz piece look promotional, too, just restating what the corporate masters dictated. As this was created by an SPA I have doubts that this wasn't a paid-for article. There's not even a Czech-language version! Chris Troutman ( talk ) 23:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 23:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 23:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Per WP:NCORP and WP:PROMO. Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 00:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete I made some improvements to the article. The closest to a WP:RS I got was czechcrunch.cz (itself a play on TechCrunch), which is mentioned a few times on the Czech Wikipedia. This web-page mentions peering.cz several times, but as far as I can see (which is not far in Czech) with trivialities that could just be material forwarded directly from peering.cz. I guess peering.cz can maybe remain mentioned in the two other pages that currently mention it, just not as a link to its own page. The one of these two places that has actual numbers on peering.gz also cites a self-published source, though. Lklundin (talk) 07:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment There is coverage that appears to be from reliable independent sources:     Gab4gab (talk) 15:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure any of these sources are reliable. As Halibutt points out, numbers one and two are the same promotional piece written by the same guy, hosted in two different places. Maybe you should have read them. That said I don't know if I would connote general notability or WP:SIGCOV from the remaining three. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 20:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: It seems the tone of this discussion changed about halfway through. Any new comments about the new sourcing claims?
 * Comment You are listed at WP:Translators_available and have contributed recently. Could you help out here, by checking if the above listed sources do indeed make some non-trivial metion of Peering.cz, and if so, if any of them can be used as source for the information currently in this article! Either way, many thanks for your contributions! Lklundin (talk) 12:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment can't comment on the other two sources as they seem not to be independent, but the E15 piece seems to genuinely treat the subject as notable. It doesn't prove its' claim of being "the largest", but it mentions the company serves, among others, Google and Orange. The same author seems to be covering the company's creation, their expansion on home market (here and here), their expansion into Slovakia (here). The matter is covered also by this piece in Lupa.cz, which seems to be a decent source. All in all, I would treat the topic as notable, but the way it is now - its' notability is not clear from the article. Which is what matters.  // Halibutt 22:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per Halibutt's comments. If all those sources cover what you say they cover, then it would seem to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Quality of the article now doesn't matter per WP:NEXIST. It's the existence of good sources out there to determine notability that matters. The article content can always be fixed. Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment  Yes, I see now that two articles are the same.  I feel bad that I was so easily fooled by the author name appearing at the beginning of one and the end of the other. I attempted to locate independent coverage better than the junk article you located.  The articles appeared be independent and  have coverage of Peering.cz.  I'm not aware any connection between the authors and the subject organization.  It doesn't matter if the articles are promotional.  It's Wikipedia articles that require NPOV.  Sources that promote things are just fine to establish notability.   Although I said they were reliable sources on reflection I have to admit I have no information on their reliability. Gab4gab (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "Sources that promote things are just fine to establish notability." I don't think this is so. WP:N requires that sources be independent. I assume if a piece is promotional it was bought, and therefore not independent. If we had a reliable source that gave glowing coverage that would be fine but since I don't know anything about these websites I don't know how much to trust them. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 23:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I will happily agree that there's a lot we don't know. Gab4gab (talk) 00:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. After the comments of Halibutt who can actually understand the sources, I retract my 'Delete' vote in favour of a 'keep' vote. Lklundin (talk) 07:45, 21 April 2017 (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.