Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DNS Made Easy

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 delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DNS Made Easy

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article supported entirely by PRIMARY sources (mainly press releases) and name drops. No indication of notability, and the draft version was repeatedly declined for similar reasons. Primefac (talk) 01:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I don't think the article as it stands establishes notability, I haven't done a full WP:BEFORE check, and it doesn't sound aas if you have either, Primefac or if you have, you don't mention it above. As to the sources, [1] is a reliable source, although the mention of the subject is brief. [2] is a reliable source, and does not seem to be based on a press release. [3] may be reliable, I'm not sure of the credentials of the author. [4] looks to be reliable, but the key content is behind a paywall. I think this needs more checking before a decision is made. If it is kept it must be edited to remove promotional content and puffery, of course. DES ^(talk) 02:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did check all of those sources, and I did not feel that those sources demonstrated enough detail to demonstrate notability. Obviously if consensus is that I was overly critical, then I'll roll with it. Primefac (talk) 02:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. When I ask if you did a WP:BEFORE search, I mean did you do a net search of your own for other sources, not provided by the article drafter, to see if any of them demonstrated or helped to demonstrate notability? DES ^(talk) 02:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Yes, I did do a search, and found more PR and name-drops. Primefac (talk) 03:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thnak you for clarifing that, Primefac. DES ^(talk) 22:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft space. I don't know why this ended up in article space, but it shouldn't be there. It might eventually be accepted through AfC if the blatant advertising, blatant paid editing and questionable notability are dealt with. Deletion was proposed here by DGG and supported by SmokeyJoe and Sam Sailor, and seems a reasonable alternative.

Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This ended up in article space because someone, i think Wikimoze, did a copy & paste move from Draft space to article space. There is no reason to think that after moving it back to draft space it would stay there, nor that after 5 declines it will prosper there, although it could if the creator and associates were willing. I fear it must be made into an acceptable article during this AfD, or else deleted. DES ^(talk) 12:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, salt, and not move to draft space. Having it there did not produce any improvement in the past, and there's no reason to expect any in the future. The MfD already deleted it there. DGG ( talk ) 17:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking, the MfD didn't delete this or any version of it. It looked like it was heading to a delete outcome, but still had lots of time to run, when it was interrupted by the HistMerge, and made moot by the opening of this AfD. It is possible (but unlikely) that further eedits could have reverse the trend at the MfD. DES ^(talk) 22:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To add to the confusion, a new account has recreated Draft:DNS Made Easy on 16 September. I left a message on DGG's talk page in this regards. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because draft was declined so many times even after taking appropriate action and removal external links then that still be nominated for deletion. Not all resources seem to be press release. Please revert it for deletion and improve it yourself instead deleting it. Xandios (talk) 21:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Onus is on those seeking to retain the content to seek sources, not on those seeking to remove it. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated the draft for deletion, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:DNS Made Easy (2nd nomination). I considered WP:CSD#G6 but I expected at least a little pushback and didn't want to push the limits of G6. I'm hoping for a "snow" close on the MfD. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another earlier version of the draft exists at User:ZippyCycle/sandbox as well. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 15:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I searched for significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, but found only passing mentions, press releases and the usual social media stuff controlled by the company. Not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - when a dupe of this came up at AfC, I declined it there due to notability. Searches turned up nothing but (as Primefac and Cullen328 point out), mentions and press releases. No in-depth, independent coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt due to the number of times a promotional article about this company has been drafted, submitted, moved, merged, created and otherwise wasted time of Wikipedians who might otherwise be building an encyclopedia. I was unable to find reliable sources to support notability. Cited sources often either don't support the promotional content or were cherry picked for promotion. For example, the current article states "In 2012, DNS Made Easy made history...DNS Made Easy's network was unaffected by the attack with no effects to end users" but the cited source was dated 2010 and says otherwise. The second paragraph in the lead claims that the company "is the number one provider in market shares" and the cited source supports the claim but other sources don't. Search for "dns service market share" or similar. I found no other source to support the company as number one. The company isn't notable. Articles about DNS Made Easy should be blocked for a while to minimize time wasted, recognizing that it may become notable enough for an article in the future. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 20:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny all of you claim wasted time of wikipedians and still be wasting your time in this discussion. Godaddy says "making it the world's largest ICANN-accredited registrar." doesn't this look like a promotional or advertisement? What if DNS Made Easy claims is the number one provider in market shares? There are so many little things on wikipedia and i see people never be interested to read/edit/improve on them but still existing. lol Doctree you're a racist man.. Well close this topic, delete article do whatever you want and stop being biased. Xandios (talk) 08:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.