I believe this company is notable because it's one of the world's largest web hosting company, if not THE largest. I would add up the marketshare of all its acquisitions, but that would be original research. Also, note that many of the companies it bought out already have WP articles, so if those smaller companies are notable, then the parent company certainly is. MichaelBluejay (talk) 07:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be tagged with both citation needed and recent events. Host Gator buyout has not yet been officially confirmed by either company and there's only one source on the information (lacking citation). June 23, 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.19.127.209 (talk) 05:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statements like these need reliable third-party sources:

• "After admitting to two switches failing in the datacenter"
• "Endurance altered their explanation of the problem in their summary of the event to say that the outage was due to routine, scheduled maintenance,only"
• "a claim that serves the purpose of voiding their guarantee to customers"
• "This guarantee offers a free month of server for this sort of downtime which they have refused to honor"
• "What they also failed to acknowledge is that this failure came on the heels of a migration of hosting accounts from a reliable facility in Dallas, TX to the facility in Provo, Utah that had the faulty switches"

I can't find any source that states any sort of guarantee, much less a free month of hosting. Also, I see an acknowledgement of switch issues on the official response page, but nothing to state it wasn't due to scheduled maintenance that went wrong. Lastly, I don't see any evidence of an "altered explanation", and certainly no RS stating any "changed" wording was motive-based. All the official updates, including the statements about the switches, are still there and there's no so-called self-censorship/retraction. This aside, anything would require reliable third-party sources. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 21:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons 1 through 3 were my original reason for proposing deletion. Reason 4 came as soon as the deletion was proposed.

(1) It appears this Wikipedia entry is an advertisement. I don't see the encyclopedic value in providing the entry and listing their customers. Perhaps it would be better to have the company put the information in a prospectus and provide it to potential investors. (2) The company's core business is "small business advocacy in the internet age" (to paraphrase from the website). Listing of their clients seems to be an SEO trick. Consider the number of entries that use a BBB citation as a reference. (3) The company appears to have been performing "brand repair" anonymously on Wikipedia. For example, Network Solutions's history shows unpopular text was removed by an anonymous user with an IP address of 63.149.124.133. That IP address is allocated to Endurance International Group; confer WHOIS 63.149.124.133. (4) This proposed deletion and accompanying comment was immediately reverted without reason or corrective actions. The reversion was anonymous from an IP address of 210.56.103.116, which appears to be untraceable in India.

Jeffrey Walton (talk) 04:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing your concerns to the talk page. For your first concern, can you provide specific examples of what on this article appears to be an advertisement? The opening section is simple factual information about the company, followed by a list of subsidiaries (not customers or clients), and a relevant section regarding a service outage. This is typical of information you would find on any company's wikipedia article. Your second concern appears to reflect the first: you think it's a list of clients, which it is not. Your 3rd concern is that someone at the company has been repairing the brand, yet you cite changes to Network Solution's article. Network Solution is a competing web hosting provider, not a subsidiary, meaning they have been making repairs to their competitors brand. Thirdly, your concern is that your deletion template was removed, to which I have to point out that is exactly the purpose of the deletion template: it is to be removed by someone who disagrees and should not be placed up again, although you are welcome to nominate the article for delete through that page.Scoundr3l (talk) 07:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be three matters for discussion: Firstly, the addition of a "controversies" header. Secondly, the removal of the dirtmaker source. And thirdly, the changes to the Huffington Post entry. As for the first, I honestly don't see why you're trying to remove the header in the first place, so I'll need more information. For these second, please refer to WP:ABOUTSELF, which specifically mentions that self-published sources should not be used when they involve claims about third party sources. In this case, the author of the blog is claiming that he was damaged by this company, making it contentious as well. Without a third-party source to verify the damage, this is an unacceptable addition.

For the third issue, I have included additional information from Huffington Post because it is vital to understanding the controversy. The original entry said that Chai's private information was made known to the Thai government. What it failed to mention (and which can be verified in the source) is that the information revealed was his IP address and email and that Chai was not a Netfirms customer, but a visitor to a Netfirms hosted website. Anyone who's run a website before knows that all visitors' IP addresses are logged and the information is in no way private. And while Chai's email could be called private information, it's also arbitrary (i.e. unlike your street address or IP address, nobody can tell you what your email address is) Chai likely provided this information when he signed up to comment on the site. The controvery is a non-point as the site owner has every right to access that information. Rather than add this information as OR, I've included enough information for the reader to make up their own mind. I hope that helps shed some light on my changes. Scoundr3l (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scoundr3l, Regarding the fist issue, as I already pointed out, I removed the "controversies" heading because there was only one subheading that fit. The outages are not controversies. You normally want an least two similar headings before creating a more general heading above them. But since this issue is not really that important, I will leave it alone.

Regarding the second issue, please reread the guideline you are citing. That guideline pertains to the use of self-published material as a reference in a wiki about that same publisher. The reference was written by Dirt Maker, and the wiki is about Endurance; two different entities. Also, there is no guideline against using references simply because the author expresses contention. Contention exists in both of the Chai references, especially the legal complaint. You cannot get much more contentious than a legal complaint. I am adding the Dirt Maker sentence back since I respectfully believe both of your reasons for removal are in error.

Regarding the third issue, I wrote a concise neutral sentence. Your various rewordings did nothing to improve that sentence. If anyone wants details, they can read the sources. Anyway, I am going to let you have this one since your last rewording of that sentence looks much better than your previous ones.

Your diligence, vigilance, and passionate argument for Endurance against Chai makes me wonder if you have been tasked by Endurance. This whole experience has been extremely painful. Please do not accuse me of creating an edit war while you are standing vigil over your repeated removals of content; especially when all the reasons for the removals have been disputed. Now that I have shown you were in error, please do not remove my contributed content again before discussing it. Respectfully, Storyfixer (talk) 07:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the first, I and a previous editor apparently agree that there are three headings which fit under the category "controversies". I will be restoring that header pending no better argument that your disagreement with what constitutes a controversy.

Regarding the second, according to the previously linked article "Self-published sources are largely not acceptable on Wikipedia" but "Self-published may be used as sources of information about themselves, so long as: ... 2. it does not involve claims about third parties" Since this self-published blog is making a claim about Endurance International, it is an unacceptable source for that claim. Since the claim is contentious, it will be removed per WP:RS until you can find an independent and reliable source for the claim.

Regarding the third, this is an acceptable and welcome addition as it comes from an established and reliable source. Your sentence was neutral enough, but my additions came from the source itself and I've already explained why they were necessary. The primary motivation for your reversion appears to be that you don't like the changes, not that they violate any policies. It may help you to review WP:ROWN, which states "Don't revert an edit because it is unnecessary.... Even if you find an article was slightly better before an edit, in an area where opinions could differ, you should not revert that edit, especially if you are the author of the prior text." My vigilance will be none of your concern so long as we can both edit the article in a civil manner and according to policy. I've thoroughly explained myself, so if you've any further cause to remove the changes, please relay them here. Thank you. Scoundr3l (talk) 04:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Scoundr3l. Thanks for your contribution. I also amended the reference to Thailand. This is a global audience, and if you were a citizen of Thailand, it would read wrong as "foreign government". jbergloff (talk) 06:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's an embarrassing oversight. Thanks for the catch. Scoundr3l (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scoundr3l, I have already conceded on your first and third issues. But nevertheless, you need to have the last word. So be it. Regarding the other issue, be careful in your grasping. The sentence you constructed above by linking two phrases together with the word "but" is ambiguous, and implies something that is not entirely true. Wikipedia has rules (explained where you obtained the second phrase of that sentence) pertaining to self-published source about themselves. But the Dirt Maker article is not being used as a source of information about Dirt Maker. You are still using an argument which I have already shown to be invalid. I am restoring my contribution. Please do not remove it again without reason. Respectfully, Storyfixer (talk) 19:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've already linked the article. Follow the link and read it. I constructed a sentence out of the pertinent information because I don't feel like I can trust you to take responsibility for reading and understanding the policy yourself before making edits. I'm still repeating myself. You can not use self-published sources to make claims about a third party. You can use DirtMaker as a source of information about DirtMaker. You can not use DirtMaker as a source of information about Endurance International because nobody is fact-checking the information. It violates WP:RS. The content will again be removed for the specified reasons. If you want the last word, focus on making valuable contributions that do not violate policy and stop trying to prevent others from improving the article. Thank you. Scoundr3l (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have read what you wanted me to read. And I have shown you that it does not mean what you say it means. You do not know what you are talking about. And you are becoming extremely rude. I am undoing your revert. This is the last time I will put up with you. Stop vandalizing my contributions, and ask Wikipedia for a determination. Storyfixer (talk) 22:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tutelary, Thanks for pointing out that headers should describe their content. Noted, and will amend. The other changes I made were in the commit comment, and removed dead links. Since network outages or server outages can be categorized separately, and privacy issues are a concern of EIG customers and internet users who may be using EIG hosted websites, I am making it a major separate heading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wabstdev (talk • contribs) 18:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Wabstdev:, it was called a 'blackout' by media coverages and that's what it will remain to be called. Why are you so particular about this, too? The controversy was noted by several media outlets, as well. The fact that you have only edited this page makes it seem as though you may have a Conflict of interest.

You also removed:

• Dates
• Sources

Other things. It seems to me you're trying to depreciate what it was; a controversy. Tutelary (talk) 18:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tutelary Yes, I did remove one dead source, but I added another in the links section below. I did not remove any dates. I agree that blackouts should blackouts per this wiki article on blackouts. I will amend the headers per the request. I do not have a conflict of interest, I just have some accounts where I make small edits, to protect my privacy. Thanks for your concern. I will keep the changes to the text, and revert the headings per your suggestion.Wabstdev (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC) edit: fixed link.[reply]

I see where I removed the dates, and added them back in. My apologies, I thought I had added them to the headers.

It seems like this article is more about bashing EIG than it is about the company itself. Is it common for other articles to list outages? When a cable TV or electric utility provider has an outage, do they get listed in the articles each time? I almost get the impression that competitors are more interested in using this article to make the company in question look bad in hopes that some business may come their way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.126.235 (talk) 23:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm the earlier account that this article is used to bash EIG. I called a competing company to ask about pricing, and at the end of the call I said I wanted to shop around. I was told that since I was looking to buy hosting, it would be useful for me to know about Endurance International Group. They were the parent company of a lot of hosting brands, the spokesperson explained, and I could learn about them from Wikipedia. He never said anything hostile, he only mentioned EIG and Wikipedia.

That this article is being used to competitors' benefit speaks to the degree of its fault. All the "incidents" (which seem small and not atypical of a hosting company, especially one so large) should be evaluated critically to determine if notability is merited. Then, equally notable neutral and positive information should be added to counter the negative information that remains. The overall article should be unbiased. Right now it is biased against EIG, and competitors in the industry know it. Denlah (talk) 03:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed all the incidents, and I'm the person who defended them before. I may also remove the 'privacy issues' as people have filed frivolous lawsuits in the past against any company, alleging many nasty things. What happened to that lawsuit? I now know the significance of long term content, and this is not it. They may be encyclopedic if they led to something else. Say, one outage led to a loss of customers which lowered their stock price. That would be significant. Tiny little outages? Even companies like Google get those, and it's not particularly helpful to mention or document every single one. That's true of this. Tutelary (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring

User:Oldschooldsl, you appear to have a vested interest in the topic in spite of not having edited since 2011. You need to stop edit warring and listen. There is no 'agenda' that I have, if anything, you might be the one having one since you go on hiatus for 3 years and then, after there was a silent consensus to remove the material, you go and edit war it back in. Read WP:BRD. You did a bold edit, were reverted, and you should have gone to the talk page than continuing to edit war. You're at 4 reverts right now, and you need to revert your edit and maybe the reviewing administrator will go easy on you should I decide to report you for breaking 3RR. I'm also pinging editor @C.Fred: because they dealt with you in the past and gave advice. Maybe if you won't listen to me, maybe you'll listen to him. Tutelary (talk) 04:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is Unified Layer (AS46606) a product by Endurance International Group? lowendtalk.com/discussion/19753/what-is-unified-layer --128.90.94.28 (talk) 22:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]