Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unipalm

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 keep. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Unipalm

Unipalm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I couldn't establish that this quite meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Tagged for notability by Bradv 7 years ago; hopefully it can now be resolved. Boleyn (talk) 07:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment – The company is now was later known as Computerlinks UK (source: [1]). See source search links below. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

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

• Delete: It seems to me that the notability of the first existence of Unipalm relates to Pipex and has sufficiently coverage in that article. As to its second existence, Highbeam turns up various routine distribution announcements, but I can see nothing indicating notability in that period up to its merger into Computerlinks, whose own website now just redirects to Arrow Electronics following an acquisition [2]. AllyD (talk) 08:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include:

Significant coverage

• Unipalm leads the pack through Internet gateway. The Independent.
• Stability and Change in High-Tech Enterprises. pp. 142-145.
• Network World Nov 1, 1993.
• InfoWorld Nov 15, 1993
• Internet Business News (subscription required)
• Internet Business News (subscription required)
• Internet Business News (subscription required)
• Computergram International (subscription required)
• Internet Business News (subscription required)
• Daily Mail (subscription required)
• Internet Business News (subscription required)
• Internet Business News (subscription required)
• Internet Business News (subscription required)

Additional information

• Also, at one time, Unipalm Pipex was the largest internet service provider in Europe, as per Network World May 27, 1996.
• PC Mag Jul 1994 – Article about Unipalm's Mail-It email software

– NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: All of that relates to Pipex though, whose notability is in no dispute and which has its own article; I am not seeing that it demonstrates separate notability of Unipalm, as per WP:NOTINHERITED? AllyD (talk) 10:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment – Pipex was a subsidiary of Unipalm: see this link. As such, it was a part of Unipalm. Also, per the article, the company later changed its trading name to Unipalm-Pipex in July 1995. Also, please re-review the links I have provided; they are not all about the Pipex subsidiary. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• keep A crucial company for UK internet history, pre-web. It might be appropriate to merge with Pipex, but that's a question of financial history more subtle than I'm familiar with. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 02:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• Strong Keep: Per sources provided by North CorporateM (Talk) 05:50, 8 April 2015 (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.