Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bandwidth.com
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 keep. John254 00:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Bandwidth.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
No cited notability. page only exists to promote the company Ernestvoice (talk) 14:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete - nonnotable. Laudak (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete as non-notable. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JNN Is the weakest of weak votes. SashaNein (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, keep per added references. SashaNein (talk) 00:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources are cited which allow this article to satisfy WP:N and WP:V, which it currently fails to satisfy as there are no reliable sources cited either to verify the facts or support notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiw8 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the reliable sources now added. Wiw8 (talk) 09:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I added some references. --Eastmain (talk) 18:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per addition of somewhat-reliable, third-party sources. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Both of those sources are the very definition of trivial coverage. One is a passing mention in a paragraph-long report that also mentions other sites, and one is basically a press release. Kafziel Complaint Department 19:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as new sources seem to be reliable and significant enough. Article still needs a lot of work, but is no longer spammy. Kafziel Complaint Department 06:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Added two more non-trivial sources. Gr1st (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Passes WP:RS and no longer reads like marketing collateral. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete. Still unclear why it is notable. It is not big deal to get mentioned in industry press. Mukadderat (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2008 (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.