Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Broadband Internet access in the United Kingdom


 * 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. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Broadband Internet access in the United Kingdom

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I'm not completely sure about this one. It certainly isn't written in an enclopedic style, and I don't believe it is possible to change it into an encyclopedic article, since it reads more like an overview written by British Telecom about their great DSL technology, thereby lacking coverage of other technologies such as cable internet. It seems that the content was moved from Telecommunications in the United Kingdom without much discussion. (diff) Han-Kwang (t) 00:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * keep. Valid topic. Bad style not reason for deletion. What's wrong naving an article about great DSL from British Telecom. It is not about "great myDSL" from "Tyne Dock Warez"  Laudak 00:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * delete - even if well-written it would be duplicate of Telecommunications in the United Kingdom. Law/Disorder 01:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Lets see how the article progress and later could take key points and merge it with Telecommunications in the United Kingdom. Jayson 03:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep needs improvement and expansion, as is it is written with a rather techy emphasis. I can see how this can become more then a fork of the Telecommunications in the United Kingdom article, by inclusion of material on the social consequences of widespread broadband access, for example it has been linked to the very large take up of social networking in the UK.KTo288 03:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep details market moves of various companies. It is DSL centric, but not for one particular company.Patcat88 04:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep seems a valid fork per WP:SUMMARY. This is a more detailed topic split off from a larger one, and seems quite a valid way to handle it.  Article needs major clean up, but this is not a deletion issue.  Poorly written articles need cleanup not deletion.--Jayron32| talk | contribs  05:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: A few more sources (other than the reliable BBC News) wouldn't hurt. Definitely a valid topic, as mentioned above. - Rjd0060 05:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I realized later that it is part of Category:Broadband Internet access by country, that has some articles that have a better style, but most of them IMO don't belong on Wikipedia per WP:NOT: "Wikipedia articles are not sales catalogs, therefore prices of a product should not be quoted in an article unless the price can be sourced and there is a justified reason for its mention. [...] lists of products currently on sale should not quote street prices. In addition, Wikipedia is not a price guide to be used to compare the prices of competing products, [...]". Most articles in this category are basically market directories with prices. But I guess I won't find support for proposing a category-wide deletion... Han-Kwang (t) 11:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a valdi topic and it can be well written. I don't think its a directory as that would just be a list.  Tbo 157   (talk)  17:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Per practically everyone else here. AfD's shouldn't be made if the nominator isn't "sure" about their own opinion about deletion. Rray 23:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - valid subject. Think outside the box 12:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Valid topic, and should be kept, even if bad style. :-)  Stwalkerster  talk 17:41, 18 November 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.