Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Domain Registry Support

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. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Domain Registry Support

This article is about a company with doubtable business practices, and I can understand the interest of users to warn others of their methods. However, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Maybe a journalist should look into the matter, and might find a good story. However, currently it seems that no journalist has done so. As long as the entry is sourced entirely to blogs, and not to reliable sources, there's no place for this information in an encyclopaedia. Note to conspiracy theorists: I am not affiliated with the said company in any way. B. Wolterding (talk) 19:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While this company's alleged business practices may in fact be deplorable, the fact is they simply have not been covered in reliable sources. The only source listed that could be considered reliable is the BetterBusinessBureau page, which is essentially a directory listing, and not enough to hang a potentially controversial encyclopedia article on. Jfire (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe this company has been covered in reliable sources, including the BBB ~~and the FTC~~. The article needs a lot of work, but reliable sources is not an issue IMO. I also disagree that a BBB report is essentially a directory listing. For a BBB report to exist at least one case was opened by a consumer and investigated by a BBB representative. The report is posted and maintained online for all complaints filed, so the document does not represent a single situation but a collection of all as maintained in the "Complaint Outcome Statistics" section of the report.

Perhaps we just need to clean up ~~and integrate the FTC source into the article~~. Corey Salzano (talk) 17:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - The FTC and NetRaising.com sources are in reference to a different company entirely -- "Domain Registry of America, Inc." based in Markham, Ontario with a mail drop in Buffalo, New York, whose renewal notices feature "a red, white, and blue American flag billowing over the company’s name, Domain Registry of America" [1] (compare to Domain Registry Support, address in New York, NY, and the DRS renewal notice). The NetworkWold.com article is a post to "Gibbsblog" and, like the other blog posts, cannot be considered a reliable source. Jfire (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about that being a different company in the FTC source. I'm sorry for any confusion I have caused. Corey Salzano (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nominator. - Nabla (talk) 12:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To summarize: The sources "FTC" and "Netrasing.com" are about a different company. "Networkworld" is a blog post. There remains a short listing by a customer watchdog organization, which apparently received 3 complaints. Additionally, that "Domain Registry Support" and "Domain Support Group" (as listed on BBB.org) are the same company seems to be original research. For me, this does not suffice. I stand by my nomination rationale. --B. Wolterding (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2008 (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.