556:: I take issue with the unjustified use of terms such as "regularly profiled" and "drew national attention" when many of these articles linked to are clearly "trivial" (ie only mention the company fleetingly or where one of its officers is merely supplying a quote). I find that even the use of the word "Recognition" as a paragraph title is NPOV. "Ranked by" doesn't mean squat if you're not ranked #1 in a basket of important criteria, judged againts solid competition: so what if it's ranked by Netcraft? What is more, the Tier 1 Research ranking is unimpressive. I strongly suspect if we re-wrote the article and added references to the google bombing (which although are from blogs, are objective and easily reperformed), the author will beg us to delete the article ;-)
452:. The citations provided are rather trivial - just a one sentence blurb from the marketing director. In order to keep, I would like to see articles featuring the company and their contributions to the web hosting industry. With all the awards that they claim on their website, I would think this would be easy. I tried searching CNET, but found no mention of the Editor's Choice award and didn't go further than that.
435:
as spam. This is one of the better written advertisements I've seen, but it remains nothing more than an advertisement none the less. Few of the links under "recognition" actually talk about the company itself. The rest are included because an employee of the company got a one line question/answer
361:
Under the wikipedia rules, this would clearly need much more coverage in the article, including detailed description of how this works and why this means that the very high google ranking may be unjustified for the company. It's unclear that the article would end up in a positive light at the end of
249:
This simply an informational page about a company that is large enough and has created enough notable products to be featured in
Knowledge (XXG). The fact that the company has been featured in such large publications means that they are doing something important that will benefit the Knowledge (XXG)
207:
then they renamed it with the comment '(moved Aplus.net to Aplus.Net: Company name was capitalized incorrectly.)' back to the original article. It all seems a bit slimey to me. Personally, I've got nothing against companies in general, but in this case, I'm unclear what the advantage is for the
226:, "Advertisements masquerading as articles". There is nothing substantive or encyclopedic here, just a laundry list of accomplishments and awards. Look at the author's contributions - they are all either working on this article, or spamming other articles with links to this one. --
570:
and it is sponsored by the top two recipients of the award. :-) It wasn't clear what they did to deserve it, but I speculate that the award goes to the CNET's favourite web hoster, which I would guess would be the ones that pay them the most
533:
548:, as is the Tophost article, which is completely written by the company's PR department. Also curious for someone who appears to be so well acquainted with wiki's policy on speedy deletion, the author is nevertheless guilty of
255:
I would disagree with the “Conflict of
Interest” point. I do not see exactly what part of that policy the articles breaks. I am assuming some users may think this is self promotion but the wikipedia policy
484:. The page may be able to be encyclopedic, but certainly not in its current incarnation (or last). Unless a neutral editor completely redoes the article, it needs to be removed, IMHO. --
414:
436:
in an unrelated article. The entire section is basically nothing more than name dropping in an attempt to add legitimacy. The blatant linkspamming does not help their cause at all.
354:
there are some curious omissions however, it strangely doesn't cover the sleezoid google bombing techniques that push the company way up in the google ranking, described here:
345:
When an article on an otherwise encyclopedic topic has the tone of an advertisement, the article can often be salvaged by rewriting it in a neutral point of view.
116:. The article was recently recreated, but the content has changed. The author opposes its speedy deletion, so I am putting it up on AfD for reconsideration.
113:
324:- Everything I've seen here leads me to believe this is spam. While maybe someone will start a legitimate article on this eventually, this isn't it.
583:: Not a dumb marketing move - create a category you know you can win, and sponsor a prize for it. The CNet site says the winning criteria are "
410:
289:
17:
169:
264:
1. Links that appear to promote products by pointing to obscure or not particularly relevant commercial sites (commercial links).
357:
524:) has made no other meaningful edits apart from this article and associated spam links. The subject's website ranks a healthy
541:
532:(lower than the subject), As pointed out aplus consolidates hits belonging to many of its clients by googlebombing. pcmag (
521:
83:
78:
87:
608:
36:
537:
374:
70:
267:
2. Links that appear to promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages (vanity links).
587:". Some expert can probably explain how they managed to click-bomb or link bomb CNET for 322 consecutive weeks.
607:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
120:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
404:
283:
591:
575:
560:
488:
468:
440:
421:
395:
366:
328:
311:
241:
212:
145:
128:
52:
544:
searches all reveal zerohits other than directory listings. the links to about.com and
Hostreview are but
304:
234:
400:
389:
349:
279:
173:
464:
unless it is substanstially rewritten in a NPOV manner since the article seems rather spammish to me.
373:
I do believe the artcile has encyclopedic value. The company is in the top 25 web hosts in the world
298:
228:
125:
74:
142:
553:
511:
494:
270:
3. Biographical material that does not significantly add to the clarity or quality of the article.
177:
49:
529:
359:
66:
58:
568:
525:
515:
502:. This is all very distasteful. Clearly the author's intentions are dishonest per research by
485:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
549:
507:
499:
449:
223:
158:
138:
588:
557:
481:
418:
325:
461:
192:
Neither of these sockpuppets have made other useful changes to other parts of the wikipedia
186:
572:
503:
392:
363:
355:
209:
117:
185:
Checking the history list, this article was recreated less than a week after the last
477:
437:
375:
http://www.webhosting.info/webhosts/tophosts/Country/US?pi=2&ob=RANK&oo=ASC
104:
545:
448:: Notability seems to be better established, but I still don't see this meeting
465:
195:
the sockpuppets have however unnecessarily been wikilinking it around as in:
385:
510:, but the author no favours by using tactics like what we have witnessed.
172:
it has been created and predominately written by the company sockpuppets:
377:. There are many smaller web hosting companies listed on Knowledge (XXG)
378:
182:
This is not a company that anyone other than itself has seen fit to add.
141:
now. Has been mentioned multiple times in independent reliable sources.
585:
based on how many visits per week they get from CNET Internet
Services
208:
wikipedia for having this article, and allowing this kind of stuff.
348:
to me this article is written in very neutral point of view.
601:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
567:
Amusingly, I did track down the CNET 'favourite web host' award
261:
Examples of these types (self promotion) of material include:
528:, and the Tophost award checks out. Curiously tophost ranks
506:. It's a possible that the company could conceivably meet
340:- It cleary states in the Knowledge (XXG) policy page that
274:
I do not think the article breaks any of the above rules.
202:
200:
198:
196:
100:
96:
92:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
611:). No further edits should be made to this page.
456:if the awards can be verified. I'd also support
8:
379:http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Web_hosting
112:This article was deleted back in August per
417:, both were to participate in this debate.
204:(presumably as a form of cheap advertising)
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
278:This is the first and only edit for
170:Knowledge (XXG):Conflict of interest
24:
189:(with only a trivial name change)
1:
53:01:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
592:13:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
576:05:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
561:03:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
489:02:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
469:00:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
441:00:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
422:03:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
396:21:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
384:apparently another decisive
367:21:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
329:20:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
312:20:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
242:17:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
213:17:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
146:07:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
129:07:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
628:
413:) is a likely sock. Only
114:a previous AfD nomination
604:Please do not modify it.
362:the day for the company.
222:. Absolutely not. See
32:Please do not modify it.
174:USER:216.55.131.77
314:
247:I would say KEEP.
619:
606:
310:
307:
301:
277:
240:
237:
231:
123:
108:
90:
34:
627:
626:
622:
621:
620:
618:
617:
616:
615:
609:deletion review
602:
305:
299:
297:
292:) - isn't that
235:
229:
227:
220:Delete and salt
121:
81:
65:
62:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
625:
623:
614:
613:
597:
596:
595:
594:
564:
563:
491:
471:
443:
429:
428:
427:
426:
425:
424:
371:
370:
369:
346:
342:
341:
332:
331:
318:
317:
316:
315:
273:
271:
268:
265:
262:
258:
257:
252:
251:
244:
217:
216:
215:
205:
193:
190:
183:
180:
148:
143:Kavadi carrier
137:seems to meet
110:
109:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
624:
612:
610:
605:
599:
598:
593:
590:
586:
582:
579:
578:
577:
574:
569:
566:
565:
562:
559:
555:
551:
547:
543:
539:
535:
531:
527:
523:
520:
517:
513:
509:
505:
501:
497:
496:
495:Speedy Delete
492:
490:
487:
483:
479:
475:
472:
470:
467:
463:
459:
458:Speedy Delete
455:
451:
447:
444:
442:
439:
434:
431:
430:
423:
420:
416:
412:
409:
406:
402:
401:Wiki-enforcer
399:
398:
397:
394:
391:
390:Wiki-enforcer
387:
383:
382:
380:
376:
372:
368:
365:
360:
358:
356:
353:
352:
351:
350:Wiki-enforcer
347:
344:
343:
339:
338:
334:
333:
330:
327:
323:
320:
319:
313:
308:
302:
295:
291:
288:
285:
281:
280:Wiki-enforcer
276:
275:
272:
269:
266:
263:
260:
259:
254:
253:
248:
245:
243:
238:
232:
225:
221:
218:
214:
211:
206:
203:
201:
199:
197:
194:
191:
188:
184:
181:
179:
175:
171:
167:
163:
162:
160:
156:
152:
149:
147:
144:
140:
136:
133:
132:
131:
130:
127:
124:
119:
115:
106:
102:
98:
94:
89:
85:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
63:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
603:
600:
584:
580:
554:weasel words
546:infomercials
518:
493:
486:Benwildeboer
476::Agree with
473:
457:
453:
445:
432:
407:
336:
335:
321:
293:
286:
246:
219:
178:USER:Dnate76
165:
154:
153:I agree the
150:
134:
111:
45:
43:
31:
28:
589:Ohconfucius
558:Ohconfucius
482:Wickethewok
419:Ohconfucius
326:Wickethewok
168:is clearly
161:, however:
573:WolfKeeper
504:WolfKeeper
393:WolfKeeper
364:WolfKeeper
300:Aguerriero
250:community.
230:Aguerriero
210:WolfKeeper
157:may meet
67:Aplus.Net
59:Aplus.Net
552:, using
530:22,111th
522:contribs
478:Resolute
438:Resolute
411:contribs
290:contribs
581:Comment
550:WP:NPOV
526:1,105th
512:Dnate76
508:WP:CORP
500:WP:SPAM
450:WP:CORP
415:2 edits
386:opinion
224:WP:SPAM
166:article
159:WP:CORP
155:company
139:WP:CORP
84:protect
79:history
50:W.marsh
571:money.
540:) and
536:&
474:Delete
460:under
446:Delete
433:Delete
322:Delete
187:WP:AFD
151:Delete
118:Tangot
88:delete
46:delete
466:Leuko
294:weird
105:views
97:watch
93:links
16:<
542:cnet
516:talk
480:and
454:Keep
405:talk
337:Keep
306:talk
296:? --
284:talk
236:talk
176:and
164:the
135:Keep
101:logs
75:talk
71:edit
498:as
462:G11
388:by
126:ngo
381:.
256:is
103:|
99:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
77:|
73:|
48:.
538:2
534:1
519:·
514:(
408:·
403:(
309:)
303:(
287:·
282:(
239:)
233:(
122:a
107:)
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.