Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/.host

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. No opinions of any substance about why this might be notable. Sandstein 16:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

.host

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

Non-notable top-level domain. No independent sources towards notability. Written as an advertisement by the CEO of the company that owns the .host TLD as stated in previous talk page comments when the article was previously speedy deleted by me when the advertising was more blatant. I have since restored the talk page revisions for review during this AfD. See also Protld (talk · contribs), the original account that created the speedy deleted versions. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 05:11, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computer-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 05:11, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pure vandalism! The fact that the person involved has been creating multiple accounts to re-create the article should portray the lack of professionality from the involved parties. A domain under the name informations.host first added by the same people from ProTLD has been suspended by the official .HOST registrar Radix (DotHost Inc.) which is the registry sponsor. I have failed to find any documentation of ownership from this seemingly non-existent company. Since the creator involved is obviously in here for economical interest and even adding in forum boards such as "subnetweb" under the list of accredited registrars (which is false according to Radix). I suggest deletion of this entire article or edit out irrelevant information and correct information such as the registry being under IANA and not ProTLD. ProTLD is not a domain operator as far as I see. Dialupinternet (talk) 10:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC) — Dialupinternet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 04:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree that this article should be deleted. It is probably non-notable, and is certainly spammy. Kiwi128 (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I do not agree that the .host article should be deleted, I do acknowledge that the person writing nonsense on this article should be prevented from doing so. As well, I have requested the take down of informations.host, and I received a response from Radix of which the domain was suspended as well as any associated domains. FlamesRunner (talk) 02:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's just a generic TLD. We can write a single sentence about it at top-level domain or wherever. Stuff like .com has significant coverage in reliable sources, including detailed histories. I admit that I gave up a little quickly, but I didn't see anything like that for .host. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I've de-spammed the page, though the author seems to revert all such changes. What's left is a basic outline of a gTLD. In the past, TLDs were few, so articles made sense. Under the gTLD program, anyone can pretty much create their own TLD if they have the money and go through the process. Hmmmm..... www.crow? So I really don't see how this one is particularly notable, other than being a word that internet companies might find attractive. All the info here (minus spam) is also found at List of Internet top-level domains, so again, I see no compelling reason for this article. Crow^Caw 19:10, 5 June 2016 (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.