| Revision as of 15:13, 6 February 2007 editIhcoyc (talk | contribs)30,401 edits →[]← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 06:48, 11 February 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> | |||
| :''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. '' | |||
| <!--Template:Afd top | |||
| Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. --> | |||
| The result was '''keep'''. — ] 01:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|O}} | |||
| :{{la|Graceba Total Communications}} – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> | |||
| Disputed speedy deletion, article doesn't present evidence of meeting ]. Count me '''neutral''', procedural listing. --] 01:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC) | Disputed speedy deletion, article doesn't present evidence of meeting ]. Count me '''neutral''', procedural listing. --] 01:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' Article is only a couple days old. Talk says they are working on it. Assume good faith. Looks like it may enough enough media coverage to pass ] under general criteria.--] 01:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' Article is only a couple days old. Talk says they are working on it. Assume good faith. Looks like it may enough enough media coverage to pass ] under general criteria.--] 01:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
| * ''' |
* '''Strong Delete''' I am the original editor and would like this article to be deleted. --] 18:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ** It should be noted that the author nominated much of his work for "Strong Delete" after a content dispute with another editor ] 01:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Week Keep''' Although I've been accused of having very high standards for notability (and it's probably true), I think this article should be given a chance. It may not yet meet ] but as Bill Clark and Dacium point out, it probably qualifies under other criteria. Give it a (short) while to develop, then relist if necessary.--] <sup>]</sup> | <sup>]</sup> 03:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC) | *'''Week Keep''' Although I've been accused of having very high standards for notability (and it's probably true), I think this article should be given a chance. It may not yet meet ] but as Bill Clark and Dacium point out, it probably qualifies under other criteria. Give it a (short) while to develop, then relist if necessary.--] <sup>]</sup> | <sup>]</sup> 03:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *Plant a stub, let it grow! '''Keep'''. --] 06:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC) | *Plant a stub, let it grow! '''Keep'''. --] 06:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep'''. Nothing about this article suggests advertising or a ]. Local cable TV providers are almost always likely to pass ], given that their ] status in many communities is almost certain to make their activities the subject of independent commentary. This one seems to have encountered some kind of semi-newsworthy and public regulatory hassle. - ] 15:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC) | *'''Keep'''. Nothing about this article suggests advertising or a ]. Local cable TV providers are almost always likely to pass ], given that their ] status in many communities is almost certain to make their activities the subject of independent commentary. This one seems to have encountered some kind of semi-newsworthy and public regulatory hassle. - ] 15:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep'''. Its best to keep the article for now. It is certainly not a spam page or any inflict of advertising, and I'm sure the page can be rewritten so it meets WP:CORP. ] 18:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep'''. In my humble opinion, this is a legitimate example of a notable company. Passes ]. There's evidence of ongoing legal disputes, among other things. ] 20:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Keep''' This article about a cable company seems notable enough for Misplaced Pages. ]<small> (]) (])</small> 22:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Keep''' The company has been around since 1912 and was involved in an FCC legal decision. ] 01:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep'''. Please tell me we didn't speedy delete an article about this company. Lie to me if you have to. ] 08:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div> | |||
Latest revision as of 06:48, 11 February 2022
- 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. — CharlotteWebb 01:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Graceba Total Communications
Disputed speedy deletion, article doesn't present evidence of meeting WP:CORP. Count me neutral, procedural listing. --W.marsh 01:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Article is only a couple days old. Talk says they are working on it. Assume good faith. Looks like it may enough enough media coverage to pass WP:ORG under general criteria.--Dacium 01:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Delete I am the original editor and would like this article to be deleted. --Bill Clark 18:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- It should be noted that the author nominated much of his work for "Strong Delete" after a content dispute with another editor Dhaluza 01:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Week Keep Although I've been accused of having very high standards for notability (and it's probably true), I think this article should be given a chance. It may not yet meet WP:CORP but as Bill Clark and Dacium point out, it probably qualifies under other criteria. Give it a (short) while to develop, then relist if necessary.--William Thweatt | 03:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Plant a stub, let it grow! Keep. --Dennisthe2 06:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Nothing about this article suggests advertising or a conflict of interest. Local cable TV providers are almost always likely to pass WP:CORP, given that their quasi-monopoly status in many communities is almost certain to make their activities the subject of independent commentary. This one seems to have encountered some kind of semi-newsworthy and public regulatory hassle. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Its best to keep the article for now. It is certainly not a spam page or any inflict of advertising, and I'm sure the page can be rewritten so it meets WP:CORP. Retiono Virginian 18:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. In my humble opinion, this is a legitimate example of a notable company. Passes WP:CORP. There's evidence of ongoing legal disputes, among other things. Philippe Beaudette 20:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This article about a cable company seems notable enough for Misplaced Pages. Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 22:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The company has been around since 1912 and was involved in an FCC legal decision. Dhaluza 01:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Please tell me we didn't speedy delete an article about this company. Lie to me if you have to. RFerreira 08:52, 7 February 2007 (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.