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 merge to Carlyle Group.  Skomorokh  12:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CoreSite[edit]

CoreSite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

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

I believe this is a non-notable company. Irbisgreif (talk) 09:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and also redirect to Carlyle Group. This is a significant company but it may not strictly satisfy the criteria for a standalone article. However, I see no reason to delete the content and, since the parent page is not particularly long, a merge seems a very good concept. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Can you articulate why you believe it to be non-notable? —fudoreaper (talk) 02:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following things, combined, make me suspicioius. No single one cinches it for me, but togeather, they present a situation where WP:RS of significant third-party coverage may not be available.

1. No results on Google Scholar.
2. Google News returns only [1] (having a green building is hardly notable), [2] (this single article is hardly significant coverage), [3] (more about this person than the company). These don't convince me of any real notability.
3. A straight Google search only returns results about a name change and the company's own site.

Togeather, these paint a picture that convinces me the company isn't notable. Irbisgreif (talk) 06:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per above. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• As the creator of the page, I can assure you the company is of significant notibility in the data center, telecommunications, interconnection realm, not to mention significant verticals such as the financial, web 2.0, etc as many of the world's largest financial exchanges are housed here as well as a majority of the world's internet traffic. The company's One Wilshire data center is widely-recognized as one of the most connected points in the United States. I understand that data centers do not receive mainstream comprehension, but you have other articles that refer to CoreSite's product such as Any2 Exchange, and others that are apparently valuable, so by definition the company should be valuable then as well. Also, if the Internet is notable...then CoreSite is notable, as if CoreSite's buildings were removed from the planet...a majority of the internet would disappear with it. I think maybe some revisions to the page orientation will shange things...but remember the new brand was launched on June 22nd...so most of the news is still under CRG West. Also, Google searches of CoreSite produce far more than the company web page.--User:mjobson
  • • According to this page the CoreSite marketing director is a "Mark Jobson". Any comment? --Orange Mike | Talk 01:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your argument smacks of WP:IKNOWIT. If it's so notable, there ought to be reliable independent sources to back it up, per our GNG. The "mainstreamness" of any sources is not a factor. Also, take greater care when signing in the future. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Google One Wilshire and see the 6.9 million listings that pop-up. That is CoreSite.--User:mjobson —Preceding undated comment added 00:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC). — mjobson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • And this argument smacks of WP:GHITS. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:13, 28 August 2009 (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.