From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. JohnCD ( talk) 14:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Fido.net (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Philafrenzy ( talk) 20:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep delete - though I don't think the sources are very strong, FidoNet was clearly a very early (therefore probably pioneering) internet service provider dating back to the 1980s. It clearly existed and was valued at the time. The previous AfD produced a "Keep" decision. Sionk ( talk) 22:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC) reply
I've changed my !vote, considering there is a New York provider with the same name that is the likely subject of the book source. The book source seems to be the primary reason for the previous 'Keep' decision. I'm not enough of an expert of early ISP's to challenge this confusion. Failing some sort of reliable proof of the sequence of events I think it would be misleading to keep the article. Sionk ( talk) 02:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name ( talk) 02:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Their own press release fails to mention any relation with FidoNet, which I'm sure they would have mentioned if it existed because they seem to mention every connection with other ventures otherwise. Here's what they provide as background:

So the only connection appears to be the reuse of the name (unlike what the wiki article claims.) Hope this helps. Someone not using his real name ( talk) 02:53, 4 February 2014 (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.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. JohnCD ( talk) 14:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Fido.net (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Philafrenzy ( talk) 20:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep delete - though I don't think the sources are very strong, FidoNet was clearly a very early (therefore probably pioneering) internet service provider dating back to the 1980s. It clearly existed and was valued at the time. The previous AfD produced a "Keep" decision. Sionk ( talk) 22:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC) reply
I've changed my !vote, considering there is a New York provider with the same name that is the likely subject of the book source. The book source seems to be the primary reason for the previous 'Keep' decision. I'm not enough of an expert of early ISP's to challenge this confusion. Failing some sort of reliable proof of the sequence of events I think it would be misleading to keep the article. Sionk ( talk) 02:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name ( talk) 02:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Their own press release fails to mention any relation with FidoNet, which I'm sure they would have mentioned if it existed because they seem to mention every connection with other ventures otherwise. Here's what they provide as background:

So the only connection appears to be the reuse of the name (unlike what the wiki article claims.) Hope this helps. Someone not using his real name ( talk) 02:53, 4 February 2014 (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.

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook