Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exetel

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. Daniel Bryant 06:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Exetel

WP:CORP, article makes no attempt to assert what if any notability this company may have, also privately owned. Article has also been the subject of edit warring, and if deleted a salting may be worth considering. Thewinchester ^(talk) 12:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Thewinchester ^(talk) 12:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - found some sources for you: [1], [2] (subscription only). There's more here. There's no regulation for this article. MER-C 13:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep seems a valid entry on a valid company. Do my eyes deceive me, or did I really just see MER-C !voting keep? — iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - It's certainly notable in that it's the only ISP out of 24 listed on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Internet_service_providers_of_Australia that has been targeted for deletion. Most of the ISPs listed are smaller than Exetel and have considerably less notability. Even some of the larger ISPs fall into that category. For some the only notability is that they no longer exist. In fact there is nothing in my opinion that is overly notable about any of the ISPs listed.

As a former insider in that industry there are 4 there I could see that probably meet the same objections that apply to this one in terms of Wikipedia policies. Orderinchaos 11:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

However, as you can see by following some of the links that MER-C provided, Exetel did achieve some notability last year when it announced that it would introduce p2p deprioritisation and restated its position on copyright infringement by its customers. Indeed, this issue became a significant part of the recent edit wars even though they started simply because somebody who was banned from the Exetel support forums thought he could get back at the ISP by adding negative and incorrect information to the Wikipedia entry. My reasons opposing inclusion of the proposed edits regarding those announcements may be read on the Talk:Exetel page so I will not restate them in this discussion. I have since considered editing Exetel's entry to include an NPOV version of that information however I am concerned that it would start another edit war. That is why I suggested that the page remain protected when we finally achieved consensus.

In the event that the page is deleted I fail to see why salting would be appropriate. This is exactly what opponents of Exetel would like to see and I keep checking this page now to see that it hasn't been deleted by somebody who has some ridiculous grudge against the ISP. The chances of it being recreated after deletion are slim. The only reason for this happening that I can think of is that somebody may see that 23 other Australian ISPs are included in Wikipedia yet there is no entry for one of the more popular ISPs. --AussieLegend 17:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per MER-C, sources are available to support this article and the subject looks notable. Burntsauce 17:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, definitely a notable Australian ISP. Lankiveil 08:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC).
• Delete - current article is basically a diluted advert and makes no attempt to establish the company's notability in the wider market. The links above fail to convince me anything more than that the company is reasonably good at self-promotion. Orderinchaos 11:32, 28 April 2007 (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.