Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ntl:hell

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 no consensus. W.marsh 18:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ntl:hell

Delete Forum websites are not aloud on Wikipedia London UK | talk 15:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep there is not a policy on the wikipedia that says articles about website forums can exist (see Something Awful Forums); most website forums are not on here because they haven't received sufficent outside attention to meet coverage by reliable 2nd hand sources. In this article's case, the site has been mentioned in 3 seperate articles. Plus AFD doesn't not mention what policy this article violates. Mitaphane _talk 23:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete While the reason offered by nom is not a valid reason for deletion, failing to meet requirements of WP:WEB is. --RoninBK_ETC 05:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Can't find that WP policy. But anyway, independant write-ups of this company shows notability. --Marriedtofilm 04:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • This article isn't about a company. It's about a web site. The article on the company that you appear to have mistakenly thought this article to be about, and to which arguments about independent write-ups apply, is NTL. Uncle G 09:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha. I should've typed "forum" instead of "company." But still, independent write-ups about this website forum shows notability. --Marriedtofilm 20:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Speedy Keep. ntl and its attitude towards customers has gained notoriety in UK. If it the most popular website dedicated to very important (notorious I would say) issue, it deffinetly should stay. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 12:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The issue of NTL's relations with its customers should be discussed in NTL. For having an article on this web site, the issue has to be this web site itself. Uncle G 16:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm afraid that issue of ntl's customer relations is bigger than ntl itself :)). And I'm guessing there would be enough ntl customers to pass RfM from ntl to ntl customer relations, leaving redirect link at what is now main article. :))). As to website discussed, my 2 cents would be, that if ntl workers, have found this website relevant enough to hack, I think it is important enough to stay in Wiki Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 17:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB. ntl:hell is already an external link from NTL, so those who are interested in discussing NTL in a forum will still be able to find out about this web site. --Metropolitan90 07:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable site. It's badly written, plus it already has a link in NTL – that's enough. KrakatoaKatie 10:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up. Passes WP:WEB on first criterea - multiple non-trivial published works (Guardian + Register). akaDruid 14:22, 3 November 2006 (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.