Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Connect.com.au (2nd nomination)

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 redirect‎ to Internet in Australia. There is no consensus for a merge, but that can be done editorially if it emerges. HIstory remains. Star Mississippi 02:35, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Connect.com.au[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Our notability threshold is now a lot stricter since the last AfD in 2008. It may have been one of the first ISPs in Australia but that fact itself does not confer automatic notability. Lacks significant coverage to meet WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 01:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, and Australia. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: significant coverage provided by book in 2nd reference.

Yet again LibStar nominates an article with clear significant coverage. Jack4576 (talk) 07:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We need multiple sources. LibStar (talk) 09:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The book that is currently the second reference contains one instance of the text string "connect.com.au": AARNet introduced its value added reseller program, with the first Internet service provider in this formal sense being connect.com.au, in May 1994. That's not significant coverage by any stretch of the imagination. There's one other relevant sentence on p. 52, a passing mention in a section about another company. If we are to have this article, we need a better basis than that. XOR'easter (talk) 13:53, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks XOR'Easter, yes that's not significant coverage, Jack's !vote is based on defective reasoning. LibStar (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It may make more sense to say what can be said about this in the article Internet in Australia, which has historical sections. Trimmed of the vaguely advertorial language (e.g., assuring the future competitiveness of Australia's wholesale and business internet market), what's left might slot in there nicely. XOR'easter (talk) 14:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The accessible sources are just trivial mentions. The subject does not seem important enough to be added to Internet in Australia#History, as the only claim of significance that can be backed by a source is that the subject was the first user of AARNet. Redirects to AARNet or AAPT Limited don't seem to be viable either. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 19:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to, or weak merge into, Internet in Australia § History per XOR and Tutwakhamoe. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 22:22, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Internet in Australia, or weak redirect, per XOR; they do fit together nicely, and it makes more sense to build out that article than to have a mostly unsourced article here. DFlhb (talk) 07:13, 27 May 2023 (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.