Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Premium Internet

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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Premium Internet

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Reptile49452 with no rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). I cannot find any refs to show notability - seems like your average spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems to be a term which is not very widely used. I am having trouble sourcing this. Nothing much in scholarly literature as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's simply nothing here of actual substance aside from what it means and its information, unlikely to be convincing for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 17:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. TimothyJosephWood 20:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing even resembling notability is demonstrated. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:13, 19 November 2016 (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.