Talk:Server.com
Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 19 July 2022. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
.svg){kind=link}
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Websites , an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
- Brunnock (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection. (disclosure)
Notability
[edit ]This article has been tagged for notability.
The following sources should prove notability-
- Server.com offering six ASP services for newsletter management - Network World
- Server.com's rise as an ad domain - Media Life
- Server.Com - WebApps For All Occasions - About.com
- Incredibly Useful Site : server.com PIM - Yahoo! Internet Life
- Server.com Sold For A Solid 770,000ドル - TechCrunch
Sean Brunnock (talk) 14:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC) [reply ]
- Brunnock: Oops. I overlooked a couple of these when reviewing. I'll remove the tag. However, the sources are still borderline to meet the notability guidelines for companies (WP:ORGCRIT): the TechCrunch coverae is good, but somewhat routine coverage, the Yahoo! source is not in-depth, etc. The About.com one looks relatively good. So I'm not sure this would survive a discussion at Articles for deletion. I'll wait for a second opinion from another reviewer. MarioGom (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC) [reply ]
Reverted edit
[edit ]@Brunnock Why did you revert my edit? The title is a domain name indeed, but that appears to be the WP:COMMONNAME for Server Corporation. All activities in this article refer to the same company, except the last one or two sentences. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:34, 21 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
- The article is about the website, Server.com. It's in the title.
- Server Corporation is non-notable. None of the references mention it.
- You also deleted all of the external links with no explanation.
- Sean Brunnock (talk) 12:50, 21 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
- They call it Server.com indeed, which is why I support that as an article title, but the legal name is Server Corporation, as mentioned in the Terms of Service on their website: https://web.archive.org/web/20010330070105/http://www.server.com/about/tos.html
- "doing business as server.com" is exactly what I wrote in the Wikipedia article as well.
- Media Life Magazine refers to it as a company, not a domain name:
- > One such company is Server.com
- Network World refers to it as an ASP, an Application Service Provider, a specific type of business:
- > The ASP is server.com PhotographyEdits (talk) 13:00, 21 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
- The TOS is not a reliable source. You're doing original research. Sean Brunnock (talk) 13:07, 21 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
- Per WP:PRIMARY:
- > A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.
- Citing the full legal name of a company from their ToS arguably is such a thing here. PhotographyEdits (talk) 13:32, 21 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
- You could mention that Server Corp owned Server.com. You can't change the gist of the article. The article is about a website. Sean Brunnock (talk) 14:22, 21 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
- Okay, done. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:59, 21 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
- You changed the gist of the article again. Sean Brunnock (talk) 15:23, 21 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
- Okay, done. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:59, 21 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
- You could mention that Server Corp owned Server.com. You can't change the gist of the article. The article is about a website. Sean Brunnock (talk) 14:22, 21 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
- The TOS is not a reliable source. You're doing original research. Sean Brunnock (talk) 13:07, 21 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]