Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second-level ISP

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) 00:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second-level ISP

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is poorly written and reads like an advertisement. Tags indicate these issues have existed for years. A Google search for the term "second level ISP" gives this article as the first result, and many other relevant results copy directly from the article. Novusuna (talk) 20:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article is defiantly writtin like a advertisement but i do feel there is cause for a deletion for now until it can be rewriting and put in a way that is acceptable for Wikipedia Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me} 21:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I could go either way on this. Either delete it, or merge with Anonymous web browsing and redirect. I agree that a lot of the content is poorly written and/or unsourced. The biggest problem I have with it though, is that for the most part, the term doesn't seem to exist outside of this Wikipedia article and its mirrors. (Google search [1]). If we merge and redirect, there are probably bits and pieces of this article that should/could be mentioned in Anonymous web browsing. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 21:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge I would have to agree i think merging might be the best option here Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me} 22:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ I could support merging with Anonymous web browsing and redirecting, as LinguistAtLarge suggested. Novusuna ^talk 15:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought, there's not much to this article worth merging. Better to just delete.Novusuna ^talk 20:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the term doesn't seem to exist outside of this Wikipedia article and its mirrors. MatsTheGreat (talk) 10:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 08:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete This style of article really does not fit wikipedia. its a sort of essay/multiple advertisement/howto thing.

MopSeeker (talk) 14:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is either WP:OR or it's a copyvio that we can't find any more because the article has been around long enough to be copied/indexed more than the original. Either way, it's not encyclopedic. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 20:32, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.