Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HelioHost

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HelioHost

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

References consist of routine mentions or links to the company's website. A Google search didn't turn up anything that looked like substantive discussion in independent reliable published secondary sources (Twitter, Facebook, personal blogs and reviews, etc., yes). KDS4444 (talk) 21:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said in the talk page, a lot of my research for this article was interviews from the source such as with Ashoat Tevosyan. I used the various news posts from the company website over the years to piece it all together and make a timeline of events. Also like I said on the talk page I think the subject of this article should be considered notable enough because of longevity: they have existed for over 12 years, and number of worldwide users: they have had something like 600,000 different users over the years. If anyone can find any better references I would be glad to do the work of incorporating them in to the article. Another issue is I only speak English, and since this is a worldwide company with hundreds of thousands of non-English speaking users there might be some independent reliable published secondary sources that are in other languages. If someone can do searches in languages other than English I think that could be helpful towards getting this article properly cited as well. Thanks. Krydos 02:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First of all you are a bit close to the subject as you are part of a small group of support administrators. That means you have to hold yourself to a high standard while editing this article because other people will. Your interviews with the founder and operator are not notable, as you are not notable for the purposes of the Wikipedia reliable source context. The news articles published by the source are not a reliable source any more than a press release (advertisements) is. A subject existing for a long time or having a lot of users doesn't make it notable, independent mentions of the subject (for example in news) makes it notable. 75.170.196.192 (talk) 01:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. I've been finding quite a few mentions of HelioHost from a variety of independent sources since this article was originally considered for deletion. A student working on his doctorate wrote about the subject in his thesis paper. I found a published book about the subject. The subject was described in an online magazine. Another guy wrote about the subject at great length in a published academic paper. All I have presented are the facts which are verified by multiple sources. If you have any suggestions on how to make the article better we would all love to hear them. Krydos (talk) 04:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- advertorially toned article largely cited to non-independent sources. Sample:

This server was designed to separate Helio Networks main websites, helionet.org and heliohost.org, from the user content, and provide
JSP, and Ruby on Rails was removed from the Stevie server to reduce load, and only offered on Johnny. From this point onwards the Heliohost administrators have made it a priority to keep Stevie with as high of uptime as possible. Only a few months in the last 5 years has Stevie had less than 99% uptime.^[2]

References

^ "Johnny Launched". 2011-03-25. Retrieved 2016-07-10. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
^ GRD, Piotr (2011-03-25). "HelioHost Server Monitor". Retrieved 2016-07-10. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)

Also note the ext links in body. In general, the article contains excessive intricate detail reminiscent of fan pages. This content belongs on the company web site, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of your quote do you not like? The part about the uptime? That can be verified by an independent unrelated source. That Piotr GRD has no affiliation with HelioHost, lives in Poland, and maintains uptime statistics from several different hosting sites. The HelioHost admins don't have access to edit or delete the information his website presents even if they wanted to. Thanks for giving a concrete example of something that doesn't belong in the article! It seems most other people just want to delete the entire thing without even really explaining what is wrong exactly. Krydos (talk) 22:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How much of the article can be edited while this discussion is taking place? I know the rules say the article cannot be blanked, but can I delete everything cited from helionet news, and just leave the information that independent sources have published since that seems to be the problem? Krydos (talk) 23:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. an inappropriately detailed article for an encyclopedia . This is a minor hosting service, and the article deals with the details of the nature and operations of each of their three successive servers. It's a nice research proejct on a small enterprise, but it doesn't belong in `w . DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 27 May 2017 (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.

[2]