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 keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fido.net[edit]

Fido.net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

An unsourced stub article on a not particularly popular British ISP. On the basis of search engine results it fails WP:CORPDEPTH, with only one news article about the company, when multiple sources are required. The article already has 'notability' & 'unreferenced' tags. -- Donkey1989 (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't delete the title; i.e., keep or redirect. No opinion on keeping or deleting, but if we decide to get rid of this article, it should be converted into a redirect to FidoNet, due to the similar names. At first I thought you were asking for the deletion of the latter page. Nyttend (talk) 23:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, my recent tagging "notability" is to encourage sources to pass notability, not trigger deletion... the assertion of notability would come from being an early (rather than popular) ISP, and also the reason why there's likely few online articles about them. Additionally, according to their twitter, Awarded Best Large Business Provider 2012 @ the ISPAs, so presumably good references for those would pass notability. OTOH, I'm not in favour of redirecting to FidoNet as separate articles aids disambiguation (I came here from the DAB), but I may be persuaded otherwise. To add to the one ref already there, this promo but useful (non- WP:RS)" is one of the longest established UK internet businesses, " [1] and incidental mention [2], these should be good enough [3], [4] to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Widefox; talk 10:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, good deal of coverage from secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 21:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 27 September 2012 (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.