Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Domains


 * 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

United Domains

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

not notable (contested speedy) Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep United Domains is clearly relevant, though it's quite short. Speedy deletion set by the same user (Pigsonthewing) has already been declined. With more than 700,000 registrations of new generic TLDs, it's the major domain registrar in this area. If we keep stuff like Hover and all the other, we should keep this, too. --Furnessi (talk) 07:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - the fact that a speedy deletion prod from the nominator was contested does not invalidate a subsequent AfD nomination. All four "sources" are from the company itself and can not possibly be considered "independent". Cannot find anything even close to "significant coverage" of the subject - looks to fail WP:CORPDEPTH fairly clearly. For the record, Hover (domain registrar) is also in fairly bad shape and should probably be considered for deletion also. But WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a good argument for keeping this article. Nor is WP:THISNUMBERISHUGE. Stalwart 111  (talk) 02:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - this news article appears to be reliable, but a single reliable source does not a notable subject make. Can't find anything else. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   15:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Evident notability, though needs more verification by reliable sources. --87.177.85.90 (talk) 12:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you provide some reliable sources? Stalwart 111  (talk) 03:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, coverage from lots of different secondary sources. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * With due respect (and you are an experienced admin so you certainly have my respect), which ones? Two of the "sources" are from the company's own website, one from the parent company's website and the other is from the company's own blog. None of them are independent. I did try to look for sources not included in the article itself - there are a few German news sites that give the company passing mentions but I couldn't find any that gave "significant coverage". More than happy to change my notation above if that's not accurate. Stalwart 111  (talk) 03:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 02:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete there may be lots of secondary coverage, which I highly doubt, WP:SOURCES says that these references must be of high-quality. I cannot find any --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 04:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: as most of the sources are either not independent, or barely mention the company. Does not meet the standards outlined in the WP:GNG. Vcessayist (talk) 02:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: United Domains was part of Lycos Europe, see this source. --82.113.122.165 (talk) 05:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:INHERIT. Cheers, Stalwart 111  (talk) 09:22, 8 October 2012 (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.