Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computer 2000


 * 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.  Sandstein  07:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Computer 2000

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The company is not notable and the article lacks citations and verification. Archdeceiver (talk) 14:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. The article says that this business was Europe's leading provider of IT products to resellers until it was bought out.  A middleman business of this sort, neither an originator of innovations nor a consumer brand, is an extremely unlikely candidate to ever have long term historical notability.  And the name does not make it easy to do a quick search for real sources in Google News archive, which finds many press releases announcing product lines, personnel changes, and promotional events.  (Wow!  I bet when the year 2000 comes, the Future will have arrived.  We'll have computers! And flying cars! We'll all live under domed cities full of beautiful bald headed women! I can't wait!) - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 02:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination, for the same reasons listed above. --62.49.171.1 (talk) 16:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  --  ℳ ono    03:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep a company, unlike a news event, need merely have notability, not long-term historical notability -- for a company, that's equivalrnt to "famous", a much higher standard than we use.  The largest firm in a major field of business is notable. I don't see the relevance of all the the reasons given above for deletion, but making fun of the subject of an article for being no longer current is not a reason for deletion.   DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Article certainly requires citations if it is to stay. Fiedorczuk (talk) 17:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep – There seems to be a fair amount of international coverage, e.g. of the acquisition: one example is an article in the St. Petersburg Times. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 05:06, 20 August 2010 (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.