Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Server.com


 * 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃  (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 12:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Server.com

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Server.com is a defunct (1996-2007) SaaS provider. It has sources, but lacks clear notability. It's borderline, as noted by User:MarioGom reviewing earlier but ultimately the company fails WP:GNG, WP:OPGCRIT. Note the more stringent requirement for notability under NORG, "a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules" - so parsing out company announcements, company influenced coverage, releases etc... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies,  and Technology. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I have a declared COI. However, this easily meets the 3 good sources rule- Network World,Media Life, and About.com. – Sean Brunnock (talk) 11:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Sean Brunnock (talk) 13:15, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I would argue the conflict of interest disappears when the company does. Leaning notable with the sources given above. Oaktree b (talk) 19:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment The sources in the article easily satisfy WP:3REFS-
 * Server.com offering six ASP services for newsletter management (Network World, 350 words)
 * Server.com's rise as an ad domain (Media Life, 370 words)
 * Server.Com - WebApps For All Occasions (About.com, 670 words)
 * – Sean Brunnock (talk) 09:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃  (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 11:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Sean Brunnock (talk) 11:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Just the Media Life magazine, TechCrunch, NetworkWorld, and About.com make it pass notability for a company such as this and the other more passing mentions support it. Skynxnex (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. The sources cited would not allow us to do more in this article than list the company's chronology and list of product offerings.  Hardly enough to meet the spirit of WP:CORPDEPTH.  FalconK (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:CORPDEPTH states, Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. The articles were not trivial. There were each well over 100 words. See WP:100WORDS. Sean Brunnock (talk) 22:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not about word count. Articles that are merely lists of products, for example, are specifically trivial. FalconK (talk) 23:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Network World- I was researching newsletter management services and I found an ASP with a very useful set of services that include a mail list service along with other offerings that are simple to use and effective. 
 * Media Life- After the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, America's wired population dramatically increased the amount of time spent in online chats and forums.
 * About.com- With all the great things they have to offer you really can't afford to do without them.
 * I'm not sure how you got mere lists of products from that. – Sean Brunnock (talk) 00:46, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.