Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U2BB
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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- U2BB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This appears to be a proprietary term for one manufacturers product, with no notability. The article gives no sources, and searches have failed to produce any substantial independent coverage in reliable sources. (Note: PROD was removed by a single purpose account with no edits other than to this article, without any reason being given.) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Watson is doing better than I am in identifying a particular product, about the only thing saving this from being speedied as a G11. I note that other than his tagging, the article has been edited only by three brand new SPAs; one has to suspect a common employer if not a common hand. I see no evidence that this is a term-of-art, and in addition the article says next to nothing about what characterizes the supposed new technology. Mangoe (talk) 13:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete with salt? first I thought it qualified for speedy as made up, or perhaps a joke. There does seem one or two mentions of the term "Ubiquitous ultra-broadband" from Huawei but here it uses the U2Net acronym instead of U2BB. It all seems like just a collection of buzzwords, no real content. As mentione above, single-purpose accounts that create uncited articles like this on their first edit are hard to assume as being good faith. W Nowicki (talk) 18:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:02, 5 October 2011 (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.