Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UK2 Group

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. Closed as KEEP by request of nominator after significant improvement - discussion.consensus was that way after repairs anyway (non-admin closure) ES &L 19:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UK2 Group[edit]

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

advertising The Banner talk 20:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I am at a loss as to why so many valuable articles are being deleted. Yes, they probably require a lot more information to be added in order to comply with Wiki standards but Deleting is subtracting information.

Are we going to delete every article on this list next? Template:WebManTools--Cube b3 (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just think about how our actions will effect other contributors. They will stop contributing here. In many foreign language wiki's people with an IT background have stopped contributing because their contributions would get deleted. The administration needs to help people write better articles, not delete their work because the articles should have been written better.--Cube b3 (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the tranclusion to a link. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 21:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have briefly attempted to clean up the promotional text on the page. I believe the refs I removed were entirely spam, but someone attempting to ascertain notability may want to review this old revision. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 21:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Only hits I get for them is being bought by a more notable entity. ~~Article was probably created by an SEO professional or company employee.~~ NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will take that as a compliment, as I made that article. I assure you I am not an SEO.

Where are you from? UK2 group has been advertising very aggressively and all their brands adverts can be seen on Facebook, Youtube and huge advertising platforms. I made this article to provide information on the company. I obviously didn't do a great job at it but I was optimistic that somebody more informed and better at writing IT pages would contribute to it.--Cube b3 (talk) 06:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made this page cause I was a customer of GoDaddy and had a negative experience with them. I started looking for alternatives and came across UK2 Group and their brands. Once I discovered them they seemed unavoidable as they were advertising everywhere. I did not see a Wiki page for them or their brands hence I decided to create them. That is how I operate on this platform.--Cube b3 (talk) 17:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my lack of good faith; I shouldn't have made that statement, and I have struck it. However, a good marketing department does not establish notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apology Accepted :D. I am not trying to be contentious but I can not resist the urge to attack Go Daddy one more time.

Only reason GoDaddy has such an expansive page is cause they are surrounded by a host of controversies. They are also known for their gratuitous commercials featuring Danica Patrick with a puzzled look on her face. As mentioned I am a burned customer. Okay, Done.--Cube b3 (talk) 04:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all the brands and acquired companies into one article. It looks like people have tried this in the past and then they get split up again? For example 100TB was a redirect, article, and then redirect. One coherent narrative covering the founder, the parent company, and all its "brands" and acquisitions might have a better change of being notable. Would need to be balanced and in plain English of course, but a single article would make the easier too. Merge would be more work than a simple delete, but I suspect bad ones will spring back up again if just deleted. Take a look for example at http://search.theregister.co.uk/?q=uk2 which shows there was some outages back in 2002, 2006, 2009 , and 2012 that made some news, etc. W Nowicki (talk) 22:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was discussing that and I did merge the brands back into UK2 group. Somebody deleted all the info. Now I am not sure how we go about finding the story. --Cube b3 (talk) 04:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well it looks like a bunch or articles were changed to redirects, but the content (and sources!) was not always merged. And the article kept the misleading wikilinks to the redirects back to it. This is going to take some time to clean up. (And we just got an edit conflict, sigh). W Nowicki (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I spent a couple days digging out in the info from some of the articles that either redirect to it, or are proposed to redirect. It could of course stand even more work, but I think I made some progress on the rescue. Some of the companies that were bought out over the years had some quite fascinating history of their own, although that was often not mentioned in their articles either. Often my somewhat serious criterion for notability is if there is at least one scandal or other questionable incident reported on the subject. There are still a few press releases for citations left, but I thought it would be better to admit it instead of trying to pass off some web re-posting sites as independent. There should be enough references from independent press including some major ones like The Guardian etc. Please take another look. W Nowicki (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This is not an advert, but a history of a modest, but growing, company. If Lloyds Bank paid over £40M for a majority stake, the whole may be worht £80M. That is no minnow. However, we only need one article to cover the company and its brands. If there are several they should be merged. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To be true, that article you have seen is significant changed] since my nomination. The Banner talk 22:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

REQUEST SPEEDY CLOSE AS KEEP, AS NOMINATOR. Due to a massive effort of W Nowicki the article is almost completely rewritten and changed in a proper overview article of a company. The Banner talk 22:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this article looks to be WP:GA quality, already! — Cirt (talk) 14:34, 18 September 2013 (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.