Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time UK


 * 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. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Time UK

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Olddemdike has asked this article to be deleted per the following comment he/she added on the article's talk page: "This article is so full of lies and disinformation that its hard to know just where to begin to correct it. The problem is that stating the truth could cause quite a few legal hassles. The circumstance of the financial collapse of Time were very unclear, and the questions over the company ownership, and of the relationship of the 30 or so KNOWN companies associated with the group are so murky that ti would be very difficult to make a clear cut proveable case. One day I may try, but until then, read anything on the page with a dose of disbelief. To be honest, given the problem it may well be safer to delete the page" It is unreferenced and it might not meet the notability guideline, but I'll see what the community thinks of this. Minima c  ( talk ) 07:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, weakly. Let me begin by saying that the reasoning given in this nomination -- an unsourced remark saying that an unsourced article is full of lies and disinformation, while suggesting that I know the Real Truth but for legal reasons it cannot be revealed -- is not very convincing.  On the other hand, this is an unreferenced article about a maker of otherwise ordinary PCs.  One problem is that the search "Time UK" is dredging with too wide a net; but adding "Granville" to the search yields a paltry 8 entries on Google News and more importantly, none of them seem to be more than announcements of transactions.  Unless your source fu is stronger than mine, I'd have to say this probably isn't notable.  The article does seem to be inconsistent as to whether this is a going concern or "gone into administration", i.e. bankruptcy.  - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep The topic is notable as this was, at one time, the largest manufacturer of PCs in the UK. Sources are easy to find such as .  We might merge with but the repeated restructurings make the exact relationship of these companies unclear.  In any case, disentangling this is not a matter of deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete or maybe Merge to Granville Technology Group. The fact that the legal relationship between them is unclear doesn't mean that we need separate articles on them. In fact, having separate articles simply makes it difficult to know where to put information. They are clearly very closely related. Dingo1729 (talk) 03:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability, schmotability: currently the article contains zero sources and as such needs deletion per WP:V unless somebody bothers to actually add relevant sources to the article.  Sandstein   08:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to to misunderstand or misrepresent WP:V. It has been well established by discussion at WT:Verifiability that the absence of references is not, in itself, a reason to delete.  For example, we currently see there that it is consensus that, "tagging a section just because it has no references borders on disruption".  Our actual editing policy is to retain what we can and improve it.  Deletion in such cases is disruption because it obstructs "progress toward improving an article". Colonel Warden (talk) 10:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: unsourced, therefore no way to establish WP:Notability. Article has existed for 4 1/2 years, which is quite long enough to wait for sources to eventuate. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:16, 14 November 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.