| Revision as of 15:13, 6 February 2007 editIhcoyc (talk | contribs)30,401 edits →[]← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:46, 6 February 2007 edit undoBill Clark (talk | contribs)529 edits LEAVING WIKIPEDIANext edit → | ||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| 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) | ||
| *'''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) | ||
Revision as of 18:46, 6 February 2007
Graceba Total Communications
- Graceba Total Communications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
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)
- 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)