Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrews & Arnold

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. Sandstein 08:58, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrews & Arnold[edit]

[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)

Lacks major RS, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 06:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A small UK ISP which never-the-less attracts significant independent third-party attention, thus making it notable. For example, multiple sources (including the BBC) covered their experiments to provide a broadband connection over a piece of wet string, The Register covered their honeypot trap of nuisance marketeers, the UK IPv6 Council acknowledge they were the first UK ISP to offer IPv6 and the UK Government consults with them on parliamentary business. Dorsetonian (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dorsetonian, agree with but really only these sources are not enough to make A small UK ISP notable. Meeanaya (talk) 07:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should elaborate! I provided clear evidence that WP:NCORP is met, you agree, and yet you still say the company is not notable. Dorsetonian (talk) 10:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They are famous in the field, have been mentioned in the house of commons, and have attracted significant press interest for their protection of e-rights, as alluded to above by the previous poster. Landak (talk) 11:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Famous in geeky circles perhaps and without a huge trove of material that would qualify as GNG. However, they are well-known within those industry circles and generate coverage in the relevant trade press. Shritwod (talk) 18:41, 25 July 2019 (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.