Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Otenet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy5 (talk) 02:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Otenet

Otenet (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Delete. No WP:RS, does not assert WP:N, not notable- just another ISP. Bstone (talk) 23:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  • CSD A7 No assertion of notability. This is a straightforward speedy delete. tgies (talk) 23:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Never thought I'd defend them, but OTEnet is not "just another ISP". It is Greece's ONLY ISP. They're also crap, but that's another story. A few small other ISPs (there's about 4 of them) all use OTEnet's network. When you're talking telco in Greece, you say OTE or OTEnet, there's nothing else around, really.  Channel ®   00:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, obviously. Even the quickest web search reveals that they're obviously notable. Lots of press coverage. Pburka (talk) 01:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep The only ISP in Greece is most certainly notable, even if the article is crap. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This article should definitely be kept, since the lead line claims good notability; being the only main ISP in Greece is significant enough. Even though the article might not be in a good state right now, references can be added. A Google News search shows that there are references online that can be used. --Jamie☆S93 13:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Weak Keep If they are the only ISP in Greece they are notable. The article though should ASSERT this and preferably back-up the assertion with reliable 3rd party sourcing. It also should be rewritten somewhat as at the moment it does look a bit more like an advertisement than an encylopedic article (at least to me). Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:48, 9 June 2008 (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.