Jump to content

Talk:Hurricane Electric

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jgeddis (talk | contribs) at 10:34, 3 August 2013 (→‎Still no sources). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

No COI

I've edited this article, adding some fairly reliable secondary sources. i have no connection with Hurricane Electric, though I am proud to have them operating in my home region.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can he.net please update their website/wikipedia article?

I've never seen such a poorly written PR piece. The statement regarding their largest ipv6 backbone gets shot down by the fact they aren't connected to major IPV6 networks. As of the time of this writing he.net's ipv6 does not communicate with level3s among others.Woods01 (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Electric has direct native IPv6 adjacencies with Level3/Global Crossing, AT&T, Qwest/CenturyLink, Verizon/UU.net, NTT, TiNet/Inteliquent, Telia. This can be verified via their looking glass at http://lg.he.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.164.190.177 (talk) 05:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The comment by Woods01 has been false since last year. What is the correct Wikipedia etiquette for removing it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.164.190.177 (talk) 05:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Old discussion on a talk page will be archived in time. This page is specifically for discussion, meaning that there will be non-factual or incorrect statements here. This is normal, and not a cause for concert. —fudoreaper (talk) 04:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed for deletion

I've started the longer 7 day deletion process to allow time for discussion on the removal of this article. This company is a colo provider like any other provider. This company (and certainly nothing in this article) has not broached the notability barrier by any stretch of the word. They are tiny, they are not industry game changing, nothing in the article is interesting. when i was reading through the last 2 years of sporadic edits on this company it consisted mainly of some employee apparently pasting a bunch of marketing stuff into the article and wikipedians spending a few days pulling it all out. Clearly the page has been long since abandoned as it's had 2 brief spurts of editing in several years. I think that's rooted, in large part, to the lack of notability of this company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgeddis (talk • contribs) 00:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not re-add proposed deletion tags after they have been declined, as it is a direct violation of the Wikipedia:Proposed deletion policy. If you have done your research and feel this company is not notable, then WP:AFD is the correct place to go. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 08:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, that's simply not correct. It's your opinion that it belongs in AFD that you base solely on your undelete that was admittedly in bad faith. Policy does not support your opinion. This article would qualify for speedy deletion, 7 day deletion, and every other form. AFD is not a requirement based on policy. I'll be nominating it again. it seems as if a hurricane electric employee has again inserted all the same marketing crap and interviews that are self generated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgeddis (talk • contribs) 04:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is policy that PROD cannot be used after even one editor objects. Because this article does not meet any of WP:CSD, AfD is your only option. And I'm not an HE employee.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, I do find the current state of the article very worrisome. I don't like the fact that concrete data like the fact that it was the first to connect 1000 IPv6 networks is very promising for the future of this article; it's also starting to become more promotional and less concrete.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it does, lets take a look at a couple:

− G11: Unambiguous Advertising or promition. This has been true for years as you can see over several years of edit history. Please constantly come through and have to wipe out almost everything on this page because it's all spam.

− A7: The burden is on you to show this organization is notable. Have you? Are half a dozen articles written by hurricane electric with claims about ipv4 and ipv6 make them notable? I'm not sure anyone would agree. Please support your position.

Jasper, had you taken the time to actually do the research and reading i did instead of just arbitrarily undoing a whole ton of crap you could have saved a ton of trouble seeing as you just arrived at the exact same conclusion i did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgeddis (talk • contribs) 05:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been reading this article for three years. Personally I think the article was fine before the edits of both of you. A7 does not apply because there is reliable third-party coverage. G11 does not apply because the version before the edits by both of you was fine.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't looking at a long enough history. There isn't reliable third party coverage in any of these articles referenced. The articles i removed 4 weeks ago were all dead links. so what was your complaint again? It's all marketing bs, it's always been marketing BS. you're making assertions that are unsupported by the version history or previous references on this article. if you believe there is reliable 3rd party coverage post it. It shouldn't be too difficult to find it. Considering no *notable* 3rd party coverage has ever been referenced in "three years" you claim to take to read this article what's the issue? Let the article go where it belongs or fix it yourself.Jgeddis (talk) 05:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No it hasn't. I did not find the article promotional at all, thus it is not unambiguous as required by G11. If you google Hurricane Electric you'll find quite reliable coverage that can be used to replace dead links thus this does not meet A7. I'll fix it myself if both of you agree that I can revert all of your changes and start cutting it down and rebuilding it the way it should be. As for a source, this is more than enough to justify notability.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jesper, that doesn't qualify it for notability by any means. It's an article that says very clearly hurricane electric claims this and claims that. Please find something where hurricane electric isn't the source of the material. That's at the root of the issue here. Every single article anyone has ever posted on this organization either is a dead link or HE is the source of the data. That's not acceptable. Further, HE is not an internet service provider by any stretch of the term and should not be called as such. They don't have a single ipv4 peer. all they do is connect to Any2. that doesn't qualify you to be called a carrier. and no i don't agree, all that material has been vetted my numerous people and repeatedly removed. Including all the references currently in this enrty. If you believe this company is notable please find an article from a reliable source in which HE isn't the source of the marketing data that article is referencing. Jgeddis (talk) 05:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's completely besides the point. This article alone would disqualify it from A7. Heck, we don't even have to include any data. However, none of this is grounds for deletion, period.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As User:Jgeddis has made some claims directly against me, both here and on my talk page, I've requested a Third Party take a look at this matter, see Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 06:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
eclipsed, i have zero interest in you or your drama. have fun in your one sided dispute as the conversation isn't about you. it's about the notoriety of the article.Jgeddis (talk) 09:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jesper you aren't supporting your position. You're just making vague references and nothing concrete. You pasted an article that CLEARLY stated a hurricane electric press release (marketing spew) was the source of the information. That does not qualify a company for notoriety, I'm sorry. Here's the given state of the matter:

I think this should be deleted based on Notability and Marketing spam. You yourself have even agreed with the latter.
You think the page should be retained based on regurgitation of a HE press release
Eclipsed thinks it should be retained because he removed the deletion tag in bad faith.
No one has done a single worthwhile addition to this page in the two weeks this has been going on nor in the 2+ years this article has existed. It's time to put up or shut up.

Therefore. Jesper agrees it's marketing BS, Eclipsed agrees it should be nominated for AFD. It sounds like we have consensus. I'll be adding several tags to the article that we have all agreed upon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgeddis (talk • contribs) 09:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jasper, i went back and read through wikipedia policy about the source you put as being tantamount that this tiny organization has any notability. please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources It speaks directly to your source, which is a blatantly self published source. just read the lead in to the article "Hurricane Electric, a Fremont, Calif., ISP, will announce on Monday that its IPv6 network has doubled in size in less than a year -- a sign of how rapidly IPv6 traffic is increasing across the Internet." it's the same for every single other reference in here. they're either company blogs (owen delong is an employee), company announcements, company claims, or company marketing material. Being a self published source is the common thread for any reference ever posted on this article. so again, this qualifies for speedy deletion what argument can be made, supported in policy, and supported by allowed resources to the contrary?Jgeddis (talk) 12:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re the Third Opinion Request: Please see User_talk:Eclipsed#Hurricane_Electric_Deletion. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Jgeddis, I've removed the AFD template from this article; the tag was posted as per the talk page, but the main concerns I see from the nominator refer to speedy deletion and not actual AFD deletion. I'd complete the nomination for you, but I don't want to incorrectly speculate as to the reasons you'd put forward - and thus screw up the debate. See WP:AFDHOW for the detailed instructions, or post a specific AFD rationale here and I'll complete the nomination for you. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion: Here's the deal regarding deletion. We first have to remember the general rule is that we do nothing here at Wikipedia without consensus. That's especially true for matters as important as the deletion of articles. We arrive at consensus through discussion. The place where we discuss article deletions is Articles for Deletion (AFD). CSD and PROD deletions are summary processes intended to apply only in those cases in which there is virtually no possibility that a article would not survive an AFD deletion discussion. (Sorry about the correction; one too many negatives there.) Thus, with only a couple of exceptions, if anyone objects to a criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) nomination or a proposal for deletion (PROD) nomination for any reason, for a bad or silly reason, or even simply for no specified reason, that is taken as a bulletproof indication that there is at least a possibility that the article might survive an AFD discussion and the summary process is no longer available. The mere objection is enough to require a discussion before the article is deleted. Renomination or an attempt to discuss a CSD or PROD nomination is inappropriate, as is renomination under CSD or PROD at the conclusion of a AFD discussion, because once a discussion is needed for deletion it is inappropriate for deletion to occur except through that discussion. Some exceptions do exist: Renomination under CSD is acceptable if the nomination is removed by the creator of the article. Renomination under CSD or PROD is acceptable in order to assert a wholly different reason for nomination than was asserted in the initial nomination (though it is a far better practice to get all possible reasons into the initial nomination and, should you fail to do so, to move on to an AFD and that's especially but not only true if the CSD or PROD nom was declined by an administrator). There are also special rules which apply if the CSD or PROD was done for copyvio OR biography of living persons reasons, but those do not apply here. Generally, it's acceptable to try a PROD if a CSD fails (and vice versa, I would presume, though I've never seen it done that way), though doing so is usually futile. Finally, just let me say that it's important to remember that there is no "right to deletion" (with the possible exception, at least in practice, of copyright violations and violations of the biographies of living persons policies and perhaps a couple of other legal-related issues) and that AFD is always the default process, with CSD and PROD deletions being the exceptions to the rule. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC) PS: One clarification: It is not appropriate to renominate an article under CSD or PROD soon after an AFD nomination has closed as a "keep" or a "no consensus" even for a reason which not raised during the AFD except for copyright violations which first arise after the AFD has closed, since all possible reasons for deletion should be raised and be discussed during the AFD discussion. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC) Shouldn't the notability, original research, and "reads like marketing BS" tags be removed now that the page has been effectively wiped and restarted? Hard to say it sounds like Marketing Material if there isn't anything even on the page anymore... 67.169.44.243 (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heading toward a proper cleanup

Reliable, secondary sources commenting on Hurricane Electric's IPv4/IPv6 peering/connectivity:

Foosernetz (talk) 00:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jgeddis is a Cogent shill and is repeatedly defacing Hurricane Electric's page

Jgeddis is a Cogent shill.

Evidence:

  • He is single homed behind Cogent.
  • He edited Cogent's page and removed all Peering Controversy items and anything else negative.
  • He edited Hurricane Electric's page repeatedly adding negative items and putting it up for deletion.

Pretty blatant and something he must do when he's bored or perhaps as quid pro quo because he gets free service from Cogent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.164.190.177 (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I'm not sure why you've resorted to personal attacks here, deleted my good faith comments on the talk page, and made a bad faith revert. All are big no no's on wikipedia and blockable offenses. I've followed wikipedia policy to a T regarding my good faith edits. I clearly outlined what the issues were with this page. Deal with them. I'm adding my comments back because you haven't addressed any of the issues. If you have an issue with the actual edits please address them with valid sources rather than resorting to personal remarks. I edit many articles as you can see from my history and very frequently go after unsourced material and have nominated a number of pages for deletion (VPLS was one, ReachLocal i just had deleted last month is another). I will nominate this page again for deletion if it isn't improved according to wikipedia standards. If you have an issue fix the stinking page. I'm not the issue, the article is. You think HE's looking glass isn't blatantly self published material? go read policy, create an account, then come back here and make some positive contributions. Tagging sources as not up to wikipedia standards isn't "defacement" it's fact.Jgeddis (talk) 06:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still no sources

I went through and tagged all the sources with their appropriate issues. Instead of simply reverting please fix the root problem instead. Wikipedia is very clear on it's reference and sourcing policy. Owen DeLong is a professing employee of HE and is specifically prohibited as a valid source for establishing "notability". Using "interviews" by current/former employees making unsubstantiated claims about his company flies in the face of WP:USESPS. Specifically the section that states "Self-published sources are never useful for demonstrating the notability of any subject." These articles have been repeatedly used for demonstrating notability and they are completely unverified and blatantly self published. The other two references that aren't sourced directly from HE do not qualify as reliable sources. Both are original research that isn't peer reviewed by any industry or any editors. One of them (Euro-IX) had their wikipedia page deleted 7 years ago by another editor as lacking notability.Jgeddis (talk) 06:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:SELFPUB. Then read it again. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Joe, i've read it plenty, thank you. I hope you can raise your level of discourse from condescension to meaningful dialogue. I've kicked this over to the admin board. For the record, I have no stake in it so I'm not sure why you're attempting to make it about me. It's about the article. Why not fix it instead of attempting to engage in an edit war? Thanks againJgeddis (talk) 10:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricane_Electric&oldid=566970115"