Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/263.net

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 No consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

263.net

SchmuckyTheCat listed this for speedy deletion, but I removed that due to it seeming that 263.net is very well known, particularly for its earlier years and reputation for being responsible for a lot of spam. Google news shows the following results , web search yields the following results; those are in English only, perhaps Chinese language searches will provide more results; this one needs more input from the community at large, seeing as it is the only entity listed in Category:Internet service providers of China, surely there must be some notable ISPs in China, is this one? Россавиа ^Диалог 06:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Россавиа ^Диалог 06:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Россавиа ^Диалог 06:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Россавиа ^Диалог 06:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Россавиа ^Диалог 06:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom Virek (talk) 08:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What did the Nom say? "more input from the community needed" is an arguemnt to delete?! Keep.Yobmod (talk) 11:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. 263.net has plenty of 3rd-party WP:RS coverage to satisfy WP:CORP and WP:GNG. They are one of the biggest Internet companies in China. Some coverage: Asia Times, People's Daily, InfoWorld, ChinaTechNews. • Gene93k (talk) 10:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If, by proxy, this is my nomination, I'll withdraw it if someone can work some sources and text into the article to get it expanded and explain its importance. As it stands the article does not use sources and has no major edits in three years. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

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.