Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MidPhase

: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 delete. MBisanz talk 02:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

=[[MidPhase]]=

:{{la|MidPhase}} ([{{fullurl:MidPhase|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MidPhase}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Not notable Treedel (talk) 12:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Recommend Speedy Close. User is FAR too new to nominate an article for deletion. And Keep; this is a notable company in real life and the article can be improved to pass WP:N. -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 20:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • If the article is revised to meet WP:N and WP:NOR, I would change my position That said, I must have misunderstood the deletion process. I thought it was based solely on the merits of the article, and not on how cool the person who nominated it was.

    Because this is the first action I am taking as a -registered- user, I do not expect my opinion to be weighed as heavily when it is determined what the consensus was. However, the fact that I am the one who nominated the article is not related to the discussion as to the merits of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Treedel (talk • contribs) 20:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Any registered user, however new, can nominate an article for deletion. Saying that the nominator is FAR too new has no more bearing on this deletion debate than saying that Mister Alcohol's signature is FAR too big. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: if kept this really should be a redirect to "UK-2 Group (web host)" or something like that. —Noah 08:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:ORG. No secondary sources included in article or availble on google search. Abecedare (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete since no sources really discuss this company at all; what can be found is all related to the buy-out signaled by Noah. A redirect, then, is the most I would support. BTW, nominator could give a bit more detail on the purported non-notability ;) Drmies (talk) 04:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge with article on UK-2, or rename to UK-2 and mark as a stub. Don't delete. RoyLeban (talk) 07:18, 10 January 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.