Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mobile Virtual Network Enabler


 * 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   delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Mobile Virtual Network Enabler

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article contains zero sources. It's possible that if they are notable, an article could be written, but in its current state of containing only OR, I believe it would be an improvement to delete it. Other comments on the Talk page confirm it would have to be completely re-written to be an acceptable article. CorporateM (Talk) 13:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Although just a bad article is not grounds alone for deleting the topic, since it often will get re-created as an even worse article. There is one in-line URL, to a page from 2006, around the time the article was created. It does seem this term is still in some use, although it seems to be a marketing buzzword, and each of those does not merit its own article. Another idea would be to merge this one and mobile virtual network operator into one named perhaps mobile virtual network which would talk about the concept as well as related buzzwords and acronyms. An admin could delete the bad one, move the remaining one over the redirect, and create new redirects. At the least, use lower case letters to indicate a concept article, not a proper noun, since every phrase than has been made into an acronym does not get capital letters in proper English. W Nowicki (talk) 16:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:01, 7 August 2013 (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.