Talk:CacheFly

Asserting notability & Deletion

Article looks like advertisment - links directly to a press release for reference and support. Also contains a list of customers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akamman567 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

We should have a discussion about the notability of this company. This is the discussion page, this is not disruptive. Akamman567 (talk) 05:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It should be reworked a bit, but more than just the questioned ref is attached, at least a few of which are by third party reliable sources. So, a speedy delete tag is certainly not applicable here; and it has already been restored once from a prod, so the only avenue to discuss potential notability deletion is an AfD. However, bad-faith pointy noms generally get closed quickly (appears a bad-faith nom per the edit summary of the db tagging, resulting from editor's own article being deleted). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

While I agree it should be re-worked, I don't think that press releases or links demonstrating customers of the company qualify as reliable sources. While the company does exist and obviously has customers, how do you consider these links notable?

- http://appleinsider.cachefly.net/

- http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Cachenetworks-657512.html

Specifically how do you justify an article with a few lines of text, and then a big list of customers? How is this not advertising? Why is a list of customers relevant or "encyclopedic"? Akamman567 (talk) 05:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Your posts have repeatedly demonstrated the the bad-faith of your {{db-corp}} nom. The article contains more than just those two refs. An article is evaluated based on all of its refs, not just a few cherry-picked ones. As to the list of customers, I acknowledged the article needs reworked, but you clearly have a bias and should not be the one to do it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No indication of importance - references list customers, first reference is to company press release. "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akamman567 (talk • contribs) 05:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

CacheFly is Mentioned in plenty of books and also in newspapers such as the New York Times and even mentioned about 20 times in Google scholar. Clearly does not qualify for speedy deletion. --Hu12 (talk) 05:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

All of Revision3?

Perhaps Diggnation should be replaced by its parent IPTV publisher, Revision3, which offers dozens of other IPTV shows, presumable all distributed through CacheFly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.184.152.200 (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Asserting notability

The articles as it presently stands looks as if it doesn't assert notability. Technically, that means it could be speedily deleted. However, a reviewing admin might pause at the age of the article. Has anyone had luck with looking for sources, preferably containing significant coverage of the company? If not, WP:PROD might be the way to go. – The Parting Glass 15:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This article got WP:PROD'd because all of the notable items were removed by overzealous editors over the last year. I added seven references, at least a few of which are highly reputable, and re-worded the intro to state exactly why this company is notable and is different from other similar companies. Should be enough content to retain the page until the CacheFly does more interesting things or gets picked up in some more mainstream press. Mattarata (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)