Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supanet

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. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 06:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Supanet

Supanet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Does not assert notability and article exists only to promote the company as per blatant COI on talk page ErnestVoice ^{(User) (Talk)} 15:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - May be a COI but it's still written from a neutral POV (so far). Author claims he may still expand this article so it's worth giving it some more time. Also, I provided a reference for the "1 million registered subscribers".. although from a primary source, that's still an assertion of notability, there's potentially a million people that know about this ISP if the source is to be believed. OlEnglish (talk) 21:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem that I'm having with this article is that it requested more time when it was first created, and the author has not edited this article since April 2007. There are no references to prove is notability (and in my limited ability to find sources, i could find very few 3rd party references at all). Just because MacDonald's has a sign that says "Over 99 Billion Served" is not definitive proof that they have served 99 billion meals (even though they probably have surpassed that greatly). The references that are included with the article detail it's service and costs, not what makes it notable. Granted, it is written as NPOV and I withdraw my accusation of promotional, even though it is still an obvious COI and that just raises a red flag for me. -- ErnestVoice ^{(User) (Talk)} 14:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Probably notable, definitely not written like an advertisement. --Mr Accountable (talk) 05:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Despite issues noted above, it really isn't a biased article. Appears plenty notable, so I vote keep. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 03:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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.