Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eurovps


 * 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 of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 12:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Eurovps
Reads to me like an advertisement. Is this a particularly notable ISP? &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 19:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, looks notable. I've cleaned it up.  &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-12 19:59Z 
 * Delete, no links. --DelftUser 20:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "no links"? No external links?  I added one.  I don't see how that is at all a reason for deletion however.   &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-12 20:24Z 
 * I am sorry, I meant no other articles link to this one. --DelftUser 20:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay, that makes sense. It's pretty normal for new articles to have no incoming links though.  &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 11:27Z 
 * I like checking links before voting, so I thought I would save others the bother. Plus I was trying to answer the question in the nomination. --DelftUser 18:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Quarl's verision. bikeable (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but expand - this is a very bare stub Segv11 (talk/contribs) 20:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. As far as I can tell, this is non-notable. -Rebelguys2 22:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as orphaned substub, without prejudice to recreation later. Stifle 00:43, 14 January 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.