Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:45, 24 March 2009

Media Temple

• Articles for deletion/Media Temple
• Articles for deletion/Media Temple (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Media Temple (second nomination)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Media Temple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

advertising without relevant content. content not suitable for an encyclopedia. self-promotion and product placement. lacks substantial 3rd party objective evidence of notability from reliable sources Arrowhead (talk) 07:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Mysteriously, two users seem to have nominated this article within a few hours of each other, causing all sorts of confusion. The other one, Sinope09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), used the following incredibly similar nomination text at WP:AFD/Media Temple (2nd nomination):

They advertise their product/service without relevant content. The content and subject is not suitable for an encyclopedia. The company's position is for self-promotion and product placement and the article lacks substantial 3rd party objective evidence of notability from reliable sources.

I've speedily closed the other AFD as redundant to this one. Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not a mystery. The creator of the article tried to delete the first second nomination AFD. Arrowhead (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No, Toytown Mafia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is uninvolved beyond having commented below. Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. All of these issues appear to have been addressed in the previous AfD, which was closed as "keep". While the current sources are a little subpar, they're adequate, and I see no content in the article which seems particularly advertorial. Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Articles with sub-standard references should be improved, not deleted. Toytown Mafia (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. The article is self advertising (which is not a goal of the Misplaced Pages)and there is not even one 3rd party references given. Nothing links to this article. Additionally Media Temple is a small not notable company (for an Encyclopedia like Misplaced Pages) which doesn't even have an ORCA entry (see ORCA.bpn.gov). Media Temple is not a pioneer of grid-hosting (see as reference: I. Foster, C. Kesselman, The Grid: Blueprint for a New Computing Infrastructure, 1999). Arrowhead (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I really don't see how lacking an entry on a particular government procurement database has any bearing on the company's notability. Most web hosts don't participate in government contract bidding - especially as government agencies usually do their own hosting. As Euryalus notes, there are already some third-party sources, and neither a lack of incoming links nor potential factual inaccuracy is not a valid reason for deletion.

    Also, you've already implicitly voted by nominating the article for deletion. You don't need to state your position again. Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

    • Note, I have sticken the "delete" !vote by the nom Ucla2009/Arrowhead to avoid confusion. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  23:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Note about your Note, you are not in the position to negate my contribution to this deletion discussion.
  • Comment - If the article was advertising, why would half of it be about the deficiencies of their most popular service? Toytown Mafia (talk) 12:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - more secondary sources would be good, but the article does contain third party references, one of which does describe it as a pioneer of grid hosting. As I said last time we had this AfD, it's not exactly Microsoft but there is moderate independent coverage in industry media. Euryalus (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Note, Media Temple Inc. is not a pioneer in grid hosting (see reference given above). Additionally grid hosting provided by Media Temple did not work at all, so what was the notable invention? They replaced it by cluster hosting which is also invented by others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.93.94.16 (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment - the book you're referring to is searchable at Amazon, and doesn't appear to mention Media Temple at all. To assist this discussion, could you please post the actual sentence(s) from the book that support your case that Media Temple is not a pioneer of grid hosting? Euryalus (talk) 00:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Amazon's "Look Inside" feature only lets you preview text in the first few chapters of most books. Zetawoof_(ζ) 02:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Really? Hmm, showing my ignorance there. Mind you I've searched in this one for the word "grid host" and found references to pages well into the body of the book, so perhaps the entire thing is there. Either way it would be appreciated if the actual quote(s) could be posted here to inform the debate. Euryalus (talk) 03:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
          • I'll try to send you a PDF of the book. If not, get a copy from Media Temple Inc. Btw, did you ever see the Media Temple Headquarters? I did and I assure you, there is only space for maximum 4 people to work not 84 as statet in the article.97.93.94.16 (talk) 05:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
            • I don't need a pdf of the book, just the text of the sections or sentences mentioning Media Temple. If they're too long to post here, maybe Talk:Media Temple would work better. Euryalus (talk) 06:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Misplaced Pages is not a place to advertise small business. This is not appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.93.93.8 (talk) 20:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - Media Temple easily meets WP:N, WP:CORP or any other notability guideline you want to throw at it. Ok, so it only meets WP:N and WP:CORP :) The article does need some major cleanup and sourcing, but AfD is not that place for that. Just click on your handy "edit" link and start fixing things. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  23:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy delete (G11) – blatant advertisement, notable or not. Article reads like a PR piece, which is wikispam. MuZemike 00:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  • As an AFD has been closed as keep previously, this article isn't eligible for speedy deletion. In any case, it's not "blatant" advertisement - there's an attempt at neutral coverage here. Zetawoof_(ζ) 01:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Misplaced Pages is not a place to advertise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.234.103.115 (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC) Delete

• Delete* Article is blatant advertisement —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.234.103.115 (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delete* Article is blatant advertisement as it reads like a PR article 67.139.199.2 (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delete* Article is blatant advertisement as it reads like a PR article75.149.94.17 (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - Sockpuppetry is not a substitute for actual discussion. Please also note this is not a vote, so there's no point in IP-hopping just to add the same comment several times. Euryalus (talk) 00:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
    • comment to the above comment - this is not IP-hopping (how can you just decide this, because of it suit your needs?). Check the ip-addresses, and you will find out tha they are from all over the world and it is not forbidden just to write the word delete or blatant advertisement. It is not necessary to repeat the already given reasons for a deletion of a not notable company which is doing excessive self-advertising and giving unproved statements. This article is not worth to be in an Encyclopedia like the WIKIPEDIA. It it a just loss of quality of the Misplaced Pages if you keep it and this it not, what the community wants. Arrowhead (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
      • The fact that they're all making the exact same comment within a few hours of each other is incredibly suspicious, though. Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
        • I note also that immediately after the three IP's added exactly the same comment, a fourth IP, User:75.149.94.17 made repeated attempts to also add it, constantly deleting it then coming back every hour to have another go. With respect, this is exactly what you would do if you were hoping for the IP to change. No other expanation springs to mind for the dozen or so edits, especially as that IP had already commented earlier without apparent difficulty. Euryalus (talk) 23:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
          • YOU might know, that there are unexperienced users (the one you are talking about comes from Scotland! check IP)und you might know the fact, that there is usually not more then one ip change within 24h for dial-in or dsl-lines. If I would really enforce our company employees to give their statement here, that would result in a couple of hundreds different statements with different ip-adresses but I did not and Im not dependent on dsl-users, ask them to try to VOTE more then one time.Believe it or not! Forget all your theories of conspiracy. The article in question is not worth to be kept in a project like the Misplaced Pages! Just imagine how decision maker of the Encyclopedia Britannica or other big Encyclopedias would decide about this. With regards Arrowhead (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
            • You seem extraordinarily familiar with the details of these users' activity. What is your connection with it?

              Also, 75.149.94.17 isn't Scottish. It's a Comcast Business line in Illinois, registered to "ELITE GAMES". Zetawoof_(ζ) 01:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

              • and you seem extraordinary associated to (or maybe paid by) Media Temple Inc?! The user I was talking about had an ip related to BT ignite somewhere in Scotland. I don't know a user from "Elite Games" in Illinois but its good to see, that this ip is not a competitor of Media Temple Inc. isnt it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ucla2009 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

There are inexperienced users in this discussion. I am one of them. At any rate, the point remains that this is not a site to advertise and the article should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmsorensson (talk • contribs) 04:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 05:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• NOTE Checkuser has determined that Sinope09 (talk · contribs) is Ucla2009 (talk · contribs) and that neither is related to the various IPs that have commented MBisanz 05:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Disregard logical fallacies in the above discussion.—At the top of the AfD page, it says: "Before listing an article for deletion here, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate. For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem." This is what should have been done.—AfD is not cleanup; the AfD process determines whether Misplaced Pages should have an article with this title at all. In this case, it should because Linguist has shown that Media Temple is a notable company. If there's spam or advertising, fix it.—S Marshall /_Cont 08:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep as per WP:BEFORE. AFD is not the place to clean up an article.Smallman12q (talk) 10:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Organisation, corporation, or product)
• AfD debates