Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Domaining (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Domain name speculation. Regardless of the many keep sentiments below, the sources provided to not support having "domaining" as a stand-alone article, but merely use the term is an apparent neologism to refer to domain name speculation. I am performing the redirect myself, and leave the merge up to editorial discretion. lifebaka++ 20:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Domaining

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Domaining (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)

Page is a recreation of a previously deleted article. First of all, it does not meet any encyclopedic standards. Uniquely enough, they removed the only actual news piece about Domaining which clearly defines domaining as an attempt by cybersquatters to rebrand themselves. Again, redirect to cybersquatting. If you look for news about 'domaining' the only ones who actual write 'domaining is not cybersquatting' about the practice come from websites like 'Domain Name Journal' and 'The Domains', clearly biased sources (basically blogs it seems) written by people who want to legitimize the practice of cybersquatting. See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Domain_name_speculation. Magicalthirty (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and redirect either to Cybersquatting or Domain name speculation. Not sure if there is anything worth merging. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect - to Domain name speculation. The previous redirect to cybersquatting wasn't appropriate without the addition of content to that article explaining the difference between legal vs illegal cybersquatting. --Versageek 19:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete + Comment Also note that the only news article left on the Domaining page defines domaining as Cybersquatting without using the actual term. Cybersquatting is registering, trafficking in, or using a domain name with bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill of a trademark belonging to someone else. According to this Forbes article "Most of them are functioning Web sites or they're in the hands of domainers, who trade them back and forth, betting that the letters will inevitably match the acronym of one of the millions of new companies and organizations that go online each year." It's like a cybersquatting crystal ball, but that might be the definition of Domain name speculation. Magicalthirty (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is quite obvious that the sole intention of the user Magicalthirty is causing trouble over domain related issues and this user has also nominated Domain name speculation for deletion as well so the motivations of this user are quite clear. The user is trying to have their opinion accepted as fact, even when all the evidence disagrees. In the true traditions of Wikipedia, the article should be retained and be edited so that it becomes a worthwhile addition to this encyclopedia. Jmccormac (talk) 21:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect - this is essentially a POV fork - David Gerard (talk) 23:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - First, cybersquatting is a very specific crime requiring trademark infringement. Domaining is not that. Domaining is a legitimate business. All of the relevant supporting information regarding the legitimacy of domaining and the domain name industry have been submitted. Whoever recommended this page for deletion is acting from a destructive & dishonest position. The comment of Magicalthirty illustrates extreme personal bias stating "written by people who want to legitimize the practice of cybersquatting". Fact -> Domainers are against cybersquatting as clearly defined in the member code of conduct of the Internet Commerce Association and the multitude of domain name companies, blogs, news sites, domain developers and entrepreneurs I identified in the original Domaining article that was submitted, but unfortunately pruned down to bare bones. Domainers have no need to "rebrand" themselves since they, as a group, are involved in legal, ethical business practices on a daily basis. Domainers condemn cybersquatting so the entire point of this deletion thread is wholly without merit.

    Furthermore, there is a comment above the domaining article being a mere duplicate of some previous domaining article. That is is inappropriate, and false. I know because I spent approximately 9 hours researching and writing the article myself. Please preserve and protect the current Wikipedia page on "Domaining". Domaining is a relevant, viable topic which is of interest to many thousands of forum members and domain business representatives around the world. As stated in my original submission, there are international trade shows, industry associations, numerous online domain news sites, dozens of online domain monetization companies, and many thousands of people pursuing domaining on a daily basis. None of these activities I just listed pertain whatsoever to the crimes of cybersquatting. The dissenters here are making false claims and denigrating an entire industry. I think continuing to restate our case here and furthering our response to these false claims should not be necessary. Thank you. Kingwarren (talk) 23:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC) — Kingwarren (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

    • Comment In reality, domaining is not a legitimate business. It's shady, and is in fact just future cybersquatting. But the point of this AfD discussion is whether or not it's befit for an encyclopedia article, we have articles about Money laundering after all. Point being, there's an article Domain name speculation that defines exactly this. You don't see multiple, independent, reliable resources specifically covering the topic of Domaining. Magicalthirty (talk) 00:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response to Comment You couldn't be more incorrect. To say that purchasing domain names isn't a legitimate business and is "shady" shows how spectacularly skewed some peoples perspectives can be on this topic. I would defy anyone to elaborate why logging on to godaddy and spending $7 on generic, keyword based domain names that don't infringe on the trademarks of other people- for the purposes of building useful websites- is somehow "shady" or illegitimate. Anyone who has even the remotest inkling of how the 'internet works' - search engines and traffic monetization in particular- understands that domain name transacting is a totally legitimate business. It amazes me that in the year 2009, there are still people with this 'quaint' view of domain names. It's outright depressing that there are so many of them. --LoverOfArt (talk) 18:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Response to Comment The fact that you have comandeered this discussion with repeated insults points to how ridiculous you are. You know nothing about this industry. And you know absolutely nothing about the many people and businesses that you are disrespecting. You offer nothing but insults and aspersions. Wikipedia should ban you from further participation for polluting intelligent discourse with what amounts to vandalism of others' efforts here. Magicalthirty, your repeated attacks are a disservice to the process here. You had your say, and your commentary is completely empty. Domaining is indeed an industry with millions of references and indexed pages across the internet. Maybe you should reread Sedo's annual sales figures ... which comprise a fraction of the extensive & legitimate domaining business occurring annually around the world. Think you can do that? That's objective fact. What have you offered? Really. Kingwarren (talk) 00:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment Domaining is a legitimate business and taxes are paid on the profits. If it was illegal than it would be designated as such in legislation. The reality is that the user Magicalthirty is seeking to impose their own quite obviously ignorant opinion as fact in the face of all evidence to the contrary. Domaining as a legitimate business is also supported by a wealth of legal opinion. The dispute mechanisms are well established and again if Domaining was not a legitimate business, such essentially civil law dispute mechanisms would not exist. As for Magicalthirty's laughable "future trademarks" claim, perhaps it might be better to leave discussion to those with some understanding of trademarks and what they are meant to protect. Magicalthirty's "future cybersquatting" claim is so utterly ignorant of reality that it belongs more in a comicbook than in any serious discussion. The Domain name speculation article does not define domaining as "future cybersquatting". Indeed it specifically makes reference to the generic nature of the terms being registered in an early market. Typically, trademarks have to be protected and generic terms are far more difficult to register in all classes. It is obvious that the user Magicalthirty is conflating Domaining with Cybersquatting when in reality, they are two different activities that focus on domain names. One, Domaining is a legitimate business practice and the other, Cybersquatting is an activity that is quite clearly illegal in some jurisdictions. The user Magicalthirty is trying to replace this potential encyclopedia article and the Domain name speculation article with mere opinion based on ignorance of the facts. Jmccormac (talk) 01:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment How is Domaining merely restricted to being speculatory? Isn't trading stocks, high risk day trading, investing in Housing for the purpose of flipping homes for profit, among many other legal business practices, speculation? Every now and then, the financial markets engage in broad based criminal activity routing millions of dollars from hard working people's 401k to misuse and even theft. When was the last time, Wall Street was called a Casino befitting Las Vegas? There are bad elements in every industry. Calling or even suggesting remotely that Domainers are akin to being Cybersquatters is not only naive but a disgrace to one's basic intellect as someone who fails to keep up, not only with the burden of technology, but common sense as well. chrisdesouza (talk ) —Preceding undated comment added 03:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC). — chrisdesouza (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete As a POV fork of Cybersquatting and as there isn't enough verifiable distinction to keep the articles seperate. Normally I'd recommend a redirect, but since there were problems with the last redirect deletion is a valid option. ThemFromSpace 10:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Your contention that domaining is a POV fork of cybersquatting is invalid. There is no inherent nexus between "cybersquatting" and legitimate, speculative domain buying. If there is, then all legitimate activities should be defined by their 'worst case scenario'. For example, all pages on firearms should be redirected to "firearm crime", all pages on automobiles should be redirected to "illegal street racing", all pages on medicine should be redirected to "medical malpractice". That some people viscerally associate one- cybersquatting- with the other- domain buying- isn't commentary on the practice itself, but rather, is reflective of an uniformed and inaccurate view that has become pervasive. Wikipedia should work to correct this, rather than nurture it. In short, domaining is in no way whatsoever a POV fork of "cybersquatting" and if it is, then all issues should be defined thusly, as elaborated above (ie- scrap metal collecting = scrap metal theft) It is perfectly acceptable to acknowledge cybersquatting and I believe it's notorious enough to warrant it's own entry, but to define the whole practice of domain name buying as being synonymous with "cybersquatting" is grotesquely unfair and inaccurate--LoverOfArt (talk) 18:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also note that the original deletion has gotten severe criticism in certain corners of the web. [1] [2] [3] [4] Anyone who has been flagged to join this discussion should familiarise themselves with our deletion policy and the Articles for Deletion procedure. Especially note that the article won't be kept or deleted by a tally of votes but rather a consensus based off of how this article complies with our policies and guidelines. Also please read our guidelines on canvassing outside discussion. ThemFromSpace 19:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Domaining Wikipedia Page & Domain Industry Stand Independent

    Wikipedia Administrators: Please confirm and finalize the Domaining page so that ongoing development and additions may occur. This particular thread has turned into the playground of a few who aim to discredit our industry like ThemFromSpace & Magicalthirty. Below are more media links addressing the growth and legitimacy of domaining.

    The fifth article link below contains a quote from the Wall Street Journal that should end the baseless attacks of Magicalthirty & ThemFromSpace -> "The domain-name market also is attracting new types of investors. Once largely the province of entrepreneurs, it is now drawing venture capitalists, wealthy families and public companies." (Source: Wall Street Journal, 2005)

  • Thank you. Kingwarren (talk) 11:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP The attempt to delete the articles domaining and domain name speculation is clearly in bad faith, as secondary sources (cited in the article) clearly establish notability of the term domaining and the practice independent of cybersquatting. The topic should not even be up for an AfD, this process disrespects WP policies of good faith and notability. WP is not the place to fight ideological battles over controversial topics. While the two terms may once have been almost synonymous if they both had existed without prejudice simultaneously, courts clearly have drawn a legal distinction. This must be recognized in WP, no matter what individual editors may think about the practice, the fact is, it exists, can easily be documented, and even major domain registrars, accredited by ICANN, are openly, and quite obviously legally, participating, benefiting, and facilitating the practice. Instead of this process of attempting deletion or redirecting these articles, they should be given some time to evolve and establish whether they are the same or if there is a distinction. There seem to be some aspects that would support the idea that not all domaining is pure domain speculation or just flipping for money. The aspects cannot be discussed sensibly within the context established by the article cybersquatting. Kbrose (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but sort out the content dispute. The current article, as written by a proponent of 'Domaining' is clearly inadequate, with very little sourcing, and ignoring some of the good, but negative sourcing that is available. However, I can just about understand why the domainers are so annoyed about the redirect to cybersquatting. However, cybersquatting is not just an illegal act as defined in the US. It is what I know as the common name for the practice of 'domain name trading'. There needs to be some sort RFC on how to treat the subject. Quantpole (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The distinction between Domaining and Cybersquatting is laid out clearly, both in sources and in the page. Triplestop x3 18:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and redirect, upon further review this is just an attempt to legitimize/POV fork of Domain speculation as a business, which is supported by the source given by the nominator. The Forbes article is a story about a domainer where the term "Domainer" likely comes out of the mouth of the domainer himself. In NY times article, "Domaining" is not explicitly defined as something legit but mentioned in passing, and in "quotes". Either way, this seems to be an attempt at rebranding themselves. Triplestop x3 19:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (and redirect) to Domain name speculation. That is the neutral term. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Domain name "speculation" is one of many monetization techniques under the much larger umbrella of domaining. People "speculate" on real estate, stock, art, thoroughbred horses. They also invest. They also develop. They also partner. They devise business plans & take on angel investors. They hire employees to launch internet companies built around their domain investments. They go in any number of varied directions as they explore their many revenue generating alternatives. That is what domainers do on a daily basis. It is a mature, diverse business which has continually expanded year after year. It's a fact. It cannot be contested.

    The Domaining page will evolve with the continued expansion & success of the domain name industry. Many components and elements can be added to the page as the industry continues maturing into new areas and attracting many thousands of enthusiasts. This is something which Wikipedia users will enjoy and find educational. The world of domaining is extremely well-developed as evidenced by the presence of very well established online companies dedicated specifically to the business of domaining. A mere redirection to domain name "speculation" is the equivalent of forwarding the broad category of "law" to a page on "divorce law". It presumes that "divorce law" somehow represents everything there is to know about all law. Speculation, by definition, is to buy and sell with the expectation of a quick or very large profit. Wikipedia include in their defintion a "low margin of safety" and "significant risk of loss of the principal investment". There is no doubt that such an approach exists, but using this narrow definition to encompass all of investing is completely inappropriate whether the object of the investment is real estate, gold, or domain names. Speculation is by nature considered a more risky proposition, and simply does not account for proven, thoroughly researched business models. Business models that are applied in real estate, domain names, stocks, and an endless variety of other investment vehicles. A recommendation to simply merge or forward to "speculation" reveals a very limited understanding of investment as an activity that occurs along a continuum ... with speculation being a proportionally small segment narrowly located only at the extreme end of that investment continuum.

    Domaining must stand as an independent page due its broad, all encompassing nature.

    Thank you. Kingwarren (talk) 00:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP and merge/redirect Domain Name Speculation to this article - In a way, cybersquatting is a subset of domaining -- but it's an illegal subset, very notable in its own right, and deserves its own article (although it should be mentioned here). But since much domaining is legal, redirecting it to cybersquatting would not be fair or accurate. On the other hand, domain name speculation seems to be clear subset of domaining, and is not distinct or notable enough to warrant its own article, but does deserve a mention in this article. HMishkoff (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is nothing like the version that was deleted, and imho that rationale shouldn't be able to be used here. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 23:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP and merge/redirect Domain Name Speculation to this article for the reasons advanced by HMishkoff, with the possible renaming of this article to Domain Name Investing. Domaining / Domain name investing need not be Cyber squatting as that involves registering a trade mark with the intention of violating trade mark rights, it need not even be Domain Name Speculation as that implies that the intention is to sell the name at a later date for a profit. Some, purely generic, names have a high "type-in" rate and there are people in the domaining / domain name investing industry who seek names like that. Kiore (talk) 08:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • KEEP, but add a short section on Domain Name Speculation with a main article link to that article. Domaining / Domain name investing need not be Cyber squatting, nor need it be Domain Name Speculation. Domaining is a recognised business model. The assertion that Domaining and Cyber squatting are one and the same is simply offensive and when coupled with the bad faith assertion that its violating future trademarks shows a lack of NPOV in the deletion proposal. Kiore (talk) 09:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Cybersquatting does not typically involve registering a trademark with the intention of violating trademark rights. (Though this actually happened with the .eu Sunrise phase.) Cybersquatting involves registering a domain with the intent of infringing on the intellectual property rights (typically a trademark) of others. Some people on this and the Domain name speculation talk pages (Magicalthirty) have no understanding of cybersquatting and its legal definition. As for HMishkoff's opinions: Domain name speculation has a longer history than Domaining. The reality is that both domaining and cybersquatting are subsets of domain name speculation. Domain name investing is not a a widely use term and is not notable in the way that Domain name speculation and Domaining are. Therefore it is important that both articles are retained. Jmccormac (talk) 08:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP This is well-written and seems very balanced. It is certainly preferable to painting all domainers as cybersquatters. Some are and some aren't - but there is an entire legitimate industry here that does not deserve this label. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.169.152.62 (talk) 00:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC) — 70.169.152.62 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment If you read through the very long 'KEEP' statements, it is likely that these individuals are associated with the industry based on some of the comments. The fact is, though, that none of them actually reply to the pro-deletion argument that there Domaining does not have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Any news articles seen so far have either [pointed out that Domaining is just an effort by Cybersquatters to rename themselves], and others use domainers in quotes as the term likely comes out of the mouths of the domain name speculators they are interviewing. Magicalthirty (talk) 21:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I found this conversation thread after Googling the term 'Domaining' and was frankly surprised to see that Wikipedia would even consider deleting a term so widely in use to describe those that purchase domain names for resale or large scale development. Taken to it's illogical conclusion, nobody could register a passle of generic domain names without being branded a cybersquatter or unseemly speculator. I am struck that anyone may purchase Real Estate in whatever quantities they desire without risk of beeing labeled Robber Barrons while on the Internet there is a groundswell of Wiki-wonks who still harbor ill feelings against those who registered the names they wish they had captured themselves. Trying to pretend that these domainers don't exist or labelling them all criminal for seizing opportunities before others, seems immature. lossing this description would be a loss to Wikipedia so my vote is to keep. Kevin Lewis, Newport Coast, CA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.235.5.35 (talk • contribs) 2009-08-12 03:50:29
  • Merge to Domain name speculation. Naturally people involved in buying and selling domain names want that speculation to be regarded as positively as possible (the more people who join in, the more money can be made, regardless of whether the parked domains are ever used for anything other than speculation). I accept that under U.S. law "cybersquatting" has a technical meaning, and it seems reasonable to have two articles: Cybersquatting and Domain name speculation. However, there is no verification that Domaining has a meaning distinct from "domain name speculation". Johnuniq (talk) 11:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although not an expert on this subject matter, I've discerned from this discussion that, at the least, the article shall remain as a redirect. There may be enough of a distinction between "domaining" and other similar terms for a separate article and there may not be. At this point, its "above my pay grade." But at the very least this should remain as a redirect to something.--Pink Bull (talk) 23:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Cybersquatting is illegal. Meanwhile the buying and selling of domain names (i.e. domaining) is a $2-3B (i.e. Billion) annual market that has been the subject of multiple books, academic study, active reporting by business journals (including the likes of the Wall Street Journal, Business Week and others) and heavy investment. Though I am not seeped in the Wikipedia process, the fact that this article is yet again subject to this discussion clearly points to someone(s) with an axe to grind and too much time on their hands. --BidNo (talk) 23:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.37.70 (talk) [reply]
  • Please clarify which of these options should apply:
    1. Delete Domaining and keep Domain name speculation.
    2. Replace Domaining with a redirect to Domain name speculation (and merge all useful content).
    3. Keep Domaining and keep Domain name speculation as separate articles.
  • Supporting any action needs a reason, and you would need a particularly good reason to justify the last option (because the two topics have a very large amount of overlap; I don't think there is a known reliable source saying they are different). Johnuniq (talk) 03:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT I'm uncomfortable with asking people to select between two similar outcomes and one quite different one as it makes it difficult to gauge what people really want. I believe there are two questions:
    1. KEEP Domaining, or
    2. DELETE Domaining and merge all useful content to Domain name speculation.
  • If the consensus is DELETE, then:
    1. Redirect to Domain name speculation, or
    2. Leave it as a red-link
  • Supporting any option needs a reason as per Johnuniq above Kiore (talk) 05:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You believe incorrectly. Deletion and merger are incompatible outcomes. The choices are as Johnuniq posed them. Either this article and its entire edit history is deleted or it is kept. Either an administrator hits the delete button or xe does not. If it is kept, subsequent merger or redirection would be the use of an ordinary editing tool, that all editors, even those without accounts, posess. If it is deleted, creation of a redirect in place would also be the use of an ordinary editing tool, although re-creation of the same article would be re-creation of content that a consensus has been reached to delete. Uncle G (talk) 11:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is a POV fork and an attempt to split hairs on a topic. Irbisgreif (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep + Comment I think you guys are beating a dead horse. 1. Domainers buy, sell and develop domain names on the Internet. 2.Domaining is what a Domainer does, buy, sell and develop domain names on the Internet. 3. Domain Sepculation is what a domainer does when he buys low buy registering an unused domain name, develops it with his own money and offers it for sale at a profit. Cybersquatting is doing that with someone's intellectual property. Fellows, this is not rocket science. I and many senior domainers wonder wht tha fuss is about. The only thing that is apparent is somebody doesn't like domainers. The nature of Wikipedia is to allow these pages to develop on their own and quit redirecting or deleting them. The world community will contribute instead of a few folks that are trying to censure. — 74.176.216.241 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete current article and redirect to Domain name speculation. I've been involved in buying and selling domain names since 1996 and am not aware of any widespread use of the term "domaining" to describe that practice, whereas the speculation terms is general and well known. There's no reason for a separate article, and the current article is poorly sourced. People saying that the term or practice is equivalent to cybersquatting don't know squat about cybersquatting, but we already have an article on what this article is trying to cover and cannot have two. DreamGuy (talk) 19:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Domain name speculation, which is the same practice under a different name. That article already explains the difference with cybersquatting. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:42, 14 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Domaining_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1253539231"